Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Druery

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. consensus is that subject passes GNG and NCRIC (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lance Druery

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fails WP:NSPORT which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." and "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." Notability not established with substantive sources. Reywas92^Talk 06:15, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jevansen's work, below. At worst, redirect to the relevant "list of..." article. Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations", which is now what is happening. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:GNG, see link to search results on newspaper archive. Jevansen (talk) 09:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think there's enough here to meet GNG requirements. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - new sources mean there is enough to pass GNG. Thank you Jevansen for your great work on improving the article. Deus et lex (talk) 23:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The sources are insufficient to establish notability but it is reasonable to expect others may exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:06, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a cursory look at the archive linked above clearly shows enough coverage for a GNG pass. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:13, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:CRIC (currently), and also passes WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 01:39, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.