Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Ryan (cricketer)

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 redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. Missvain (talk) 03:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Ryan (cricketer)[edit]

[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 06:19, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:59, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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]
Redirect per Lugnuts ~~(and WP:TROUT to Reywas92 for flooding AfD with nominations like this)~~. Deus et lex (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Untrout please, and perhaps trout Lugnuts instead. Yesterday I redirected three such articles to lists, only to have them reverted by Lugnits[1][2][3]: the subsequent AfDs, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gale, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Anderson, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Gorton (cricketer), are at the moment all heading for deletion. It shouldn't come as a surprise then if the next day, someone decides to not bother with the redirects and to take them straight to AfD instead. If Lugnuts now agrees that redirection is the better option for these, then perhaps such AfDs aren't necessary any longer in many cases. As for flooding, when you deal with thousands of pages being created, you can't undo the issue at a rate of one per day or so. "Flooding" would be creating 100 Afds, not 6 or so (like Reywas did). Lugnuts created 40 cricket biographies on 21 December, of which some, perhaps most, are notable players, but also including things like Errol Eichstadt and Wayne Fensham. If people flood enwiki with "indiscriminate or excessive creations", one shouldn't complain that this leads to a large number of AfDs, certainly not when only the day before they made it clear that they didn't agree with redirecting such articles. Fram (talk) 11:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Untrouted, and apologies. I still maintain a redirect is appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 22:57, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you. Fram (talk) 08:24, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. This has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. I'm not convinced that, given the usual outcome, that it's a good idea to be sending this sort of article to AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very 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. Seems he played in England (Waterlooville and Hampshire 2nds) for a couple of seasons, but sources are entirely insufficient (incidental/routine sports coverage) to establish notability. However it may be reasonable to expect better may exist given coverage usually afforded to cricket in the Brisbane and wider Queensland press. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:09, 24 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.