Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Gladwin (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 keep. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:14, 6 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Gladwin (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)

Chris Gladwin (cricketer)

The only reference for this biography of a living person is a database entry, which is no longer considered sufficient to establish sports notability or general notability. This article does not mention significant coverage by independent sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tend towards keep - there are other references available online at regional press outlets (here, for example) and it's possible to verify everything in the article I think. I have no doubt whatsoever that there will be plenty in offline sources - Wisden, Essex, Derbyshire and Suffolk local press from the 80s, little of which will be online. I'll try the Times archive later if I get the chance, which may throw up things and if no one else does so, I'll add refs into the article. At the very worst this would be a redirect to List of Essex County Cricket Club players (to G) with a note added to summarise his career. This is a long established WP:ATD (policy, not guideline) that has consensus across AtD discussions from at least 2018 onwards. I may return to this discussion to add more details when I've had a chance to have a further look. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree with BST as there will be adequate coverage in Wisden and Playfair at least; possibly ESPN might have something too. Certainly his notability cannot be in question as he played for several years with three first-class counties and then became a qualified coach. It is a question of BLP sourcing per the banner there. Article also needs an infobox and copyediting. I haven't time now but will happily do those later. BoJó | talk UTC 09:17, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an infobox. I'll do some tidying up next and create some structure. We can then see what is needed and find the sources. As it happens, I don't have any Playfairs for the 1980s so I'd appreciate help with those as Chris must have had coverage in all of them. Thanks. BoJó | talk UTC 10:23, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article has shape now but there's work to be done on his playing career which needs copyediting first and then some expansion. The most important thing there will be non-database sources, although it's fine to reference an occasional scorecard, as when he made his 162 and perhaps the match against the West Indians. Playfair is needed, plus any useful mentions in Wisden. Anything else from BST in the press archives will be a great help. BoJó | talk UTC 11:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 71 first-class appearances? This is becoming a little silly. Sometimes you have to wonder how much work the nominator has put into finding secondary sources - or indeed how they came about the article in the first place. I can't believe there is a cricketer with 71 first-class appearances and no "significant coverage" - I still don't know or particularly care what that means when all it seems to be is an excuse to delete cricketers with 71 first-class appearances. Bobo . 10:08, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For the record, there are 25 first-class cricketers for Essex alone whose surnames only begin with A or B whose only references/external links come from Cricinfo and/or Cricketarchive. If these conversations are going to happen another 25 times because someone with no connection to or knowledge of the sport finds them seemingly at random(?), I'm already tired. Bobo . 10:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given that coverage exists, what is or isn't cited in the article is not the determiner of notability. --Michig (talk) 16:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Without too much effort, I've expanded the article from 185 words with one external link to 732 words with five cited sources and one new external link. There are definitely more sources out there. The 1990 edition of Playfair will certainly have a full career summary but I don't have access to it and there will definitely be more mentions in Wisden, especially the 1985 edition. That is before we think about various news items and county coverage. The expansion of this article today shows how easily cricket biographies can meet SIGCOV with just a little research and effort. BoJó | talk UTC 21:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And with a career of significant length, there will doubtless be lots out there to find in both online and offline sources. The fact that the nominating user in question states what the article currently contains makes it sound like they have made no effort in attempting to find, or enquiring whether there may be, anything more to add. Bobo . 04:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It was a poor article, but one should first look to how it might be improved, and only if that is not possible nominate it for deletion. The article has now been greatly expanded, with multiple sources showing that Gladwin was clearly notable. JH (talk page) 09:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Following expansion it's clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Would clearly seem to have played regularly at first class level and is thus notable. Dunarc (talk) 23:47, 2 November 2022 (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.