Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Beal (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 to delete. Of the many cricketer articles that have been nominated of late, this draws support to be kept due to the distinguishing feature of the subject having also been an umpire. Perhaps identifying such distinctions can serve as a path forward to bridge WP:NCRIC to the WP:GNG. BD2412 T 16:25, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Beal (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)

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" (1 2 3), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they "have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is a problem in creating them. They fail the General notability guidelines, which are the minimum inclusion criteria for all articles. It is really high time that we made all new articles go through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:32, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Nothing notable. Played cricket, umpired, flower shows, son crushed under car, "officer under the fisheries act (part II)" (whatever that means). Nigej (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets CRIN by not only playing at FC level, but also standing as an umpire. Again, I'd expect sources exist for this guy in NZ. StickyWicket (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Without providing these sources, this is wishful thinking. WP:CRIN is disputed just because it allows for the creation of articles on non-notable players, and many articles have been deleted or redirected for that reason recently, despite meeting that guideline. Fram (talk) 14:16, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers has extensive coverage of the newspapers of the time. Not sure what else you're expecting from New Zealand c. 1910. Nigej (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the principal of verifiability means that we create articles based on sources, not merely assert that we should have articles because the subject is from so long ago we cannot easily find sources. Wikipedia follows reliable source coverage, and the coverage needs to be demonstrated not merely asserted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, but by consensus that only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is totally unreliable for cricketers such as these who have played a solitary match (recent NSPORT discussion here). Fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers which is an established alternative to deletion and provides an opportunity to recover the text of this article should sources be found which mean that the chap can be shown to pass the GNG. Trivial pass of NCRIC has been established at multiple AfD as not sufficient to show that sources will exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:CRIN as both a first-class player AND first-class umpire. One of the five first-class matches in which he stood was an international match between Australia and New Zealand in 1928, two years before New Zealand gained full Test status. Paora (talk) 12:14, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:NCRIC. The point of that is that at this level there will be enough reliable sources, it is just a matter of someone putting in the time to find them. The existence of the page is the best trigger for that. Moonraker (talk) 18:28, 30 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.