Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Livingstone (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 no consensus. A wider conversation seems to need to happen around this and articles within this narrow category. If anyone would like to pursue the merge and redirect option, please do via the article talk page or another suitable venue. Daniel (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Livingstone (cricketer)

[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)

Fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage about him. Störm (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - from memory there were considerable efforts in making lists of New Zealand representative cricketers as there are. May be worth looking through all of them as well. Eitherway most of these lists have already been made. Bobo . 23:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete total cricketcruft that does not meet GNG. It is time to end Wikipedia being Criketpedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that there are other sports covered on Wikipedia, right? To an even more complete extent than the cricket project. If the people protesting against article inclusion were helping to enhance coverage, we wouldn't be in this situation. As it is, only three of us have been bothered to do the legwork. And we were wondering all along why others weren't helping. And now look where we are. Bobo . 16:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ignore Lambert - you can see from the countless prods on his talkpage he's in no position to rant about GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now now, Lugnuts, you know better than that. There is not just one person at fault here for wanting to decimate the project. Stay cool. Bobo . 17:44, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NCRIC, or redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:39, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nooooooo... don't link people to other lists of cricketers. It will simply make them realize other articles exist! Rookie mistake, my friend. Bobo . 17:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - So used to these happening that I think we've grown tired of !voting these days. Bobo . 09:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability, but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he meets the basic criteria for cricket notability namely - Have appeared as a player ... in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest ... domestic level NealeFamily (talk) 08:09, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus, NCRIC does not enjoy community support (especially in the respect of domestic cricket); for recent discussions, see here and here (there are many more discussions at NSPORT & WP:CRIC). And more than that, there is strong consensus that NSPORT (including NCRIC) does not supercede GNG (recent discussion here). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you about it being fairly unsatisfactory and under much debate, but at present it (the strong consensus you mention) has not reached a point where the rule has been changed and on the basis of the current wording Livingstone satisfies the conditions for entry however tenuous they may be. NealeFamily (talk) 08:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The problem with the article is that it says that "He scored 14 runs during his first-class career, all of which came in a single innings, against Southland. Livingstone was a lower-order batsman." which is probably true, but the article fails to mention he was in the team as a bowler and did actually take a few wickets. Initials TO in some reports which would indicate he was the Thomas Oliver Livingston (no "e") born in 1889, died 26 May 1956 in Sydney. see The Sydney Morning Herald 28 May 1956 back page. So needs a rename I suspect. Nigej (talk) 16:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the list. A single source that does nothing but list statistics doesn't seem very compelling for a standalone article; I didn't look very hard for news about the guy but it really doesn't seem like much is going to turn up (he died in 1956). But since there is already a list made for him to live in, I think that could be his home. Deleting this content seems unimaginably silly to me. jp×g 10:42, 20 January 2021 (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.