Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clive Ricks

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 delete. Sandstein 11:10, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Clive Ricks[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)

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If you are unwilling to find information yourself, at least for English-language teams please consider drawing attention to them on WT:CRIC instead, other people will have better access to information than I will. Bobo . 22:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - C&P-ing from Anthony Foot - Just because you are incapable of finding information yourself does not mean it doesn't exist. AfD should never be the reflex reaction. AfD debates are not the way to get articles improved. Take these issues to other places first. Bobo . 10:05, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not cricketpedia. We require actual verification of the article to keep it, not sourceless assertions that some more sources exist somewhere out in the universe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nor is it any-other-sport-o-pedia, but no other sports are criticized as much as cricket. If you want to do some work to find more sources, please do so, otherwise don't complain that others have done the same. Don't complain just because you refuse to do the work yourself. Bobo . 18:46, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Utterly non-notable. The concentration of cricket articles might not be criticised so heavily if there were equal numbers of articles about minor cricketers from India or Pakistan, a bias that 'Bobo192' seems quite happy with. RobinCarmody (talk) 14:22, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Say again? Equal numbers? You do realize cricket is played all over the world? Bobo . 11:13, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 17:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: The article has no sources. Could you provide some? Jerm (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources. If you are not happy with these sources, add other ones yourself or go somewhere you know other people will be able to add them. :) If you wish to replace the words "External links" with the word "References", please do so. Bobo . 17:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It always strikes me as strange that articles go without any prose edits for 11 years instead of people working on them, then those same people complain... Bobo . 17:52, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excluding other articles, this one was not made eleven years ago. It was made by you. When I make a stub, I make sure there are reliable sources that meet WP:V. Complaining about others for not contributing is a bit hypocritical when you made an article without sources. That's just pure laziness. I also couldn't find any sources about the individual, and the external link requires payment to view the page. Delete per nom. Jerm (talk) 18:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources. If you are not happy with these sources, add other ones yourself or go somewhere you know other people will be able to add them. :) If you wish to replace the words "External links" with the word "References", please do so. Ever get the feeling you're repeating yourself? Bobo . 18:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: There are neither an "External links" or "References" section in this article, so your comment makes zero sense here. Instead of complaining on every AfD and since you claim to be a cricket-subject expert, perhaps you point to where non-experts may find some actual sources? Otherwise, it seems you are putting the WP:BURDEN in the wrong place. Thank you, Yosemiter (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yosemiter: The external links were removed with this edit. I have reverted and converted the link to a reference, since that is what it is. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:54, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

When I started contributing to Wikipedia eight hundred million years ago, everything was done via external links - references didn't exist. The fact that these articles haven't been touched in that intervening period is not my fault. If you wish to go through articles I've created - most of which haven't been edited in 11 years - go ahead - but with current attitudes towards the project from those who haven't been editing for as long as all that, and have no interest in article creation, they will be deleted anyway. All it takes is for you to change the words "External links" to "References"... it's exactly the same content. Bobo . 20:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: Good for you. However you state: If you are not happy with these sources, add other ones yourself. I'm saying WP:PROVEIT: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, which is you. You cannot blame others for not providing something that you have not been able to provide yourself. Yosemiter (talk) 20:38, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are there. If you are unhappy with the sources, add new ones. If you are unhappy with the way the sources are formatted, format them the way you wish. Bobo . 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wjemather: Thank you for the clarification. It still does not take away my point about WP:PROVEIT though. If someone complains about others not providing sources, they cannot complain when they don't do so themselves. Yosemiter (talk) 20:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - now that I've looked at online sources, I'm assuming this is the same Clive Ricks who is the manager of the current England Over 60's team. If so, there are plenty of sources. I cannot be certain because all I did was a Google search. But then it does show you that Google searches can do anything you want them to do, and to say that none exists is silly.. Bobo . 19:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems likely they are one in the same, but I see no sources to confirm that. Additionally, there are not plenty of sources as you suggest, at least not substantial ones. There is one about Ricks the over-60s manager, one about Ricks the Cherwell league chairman, but none about Ricks the Oxfordshire minor-counties cricketer. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Fails NCRIC, since minor counties cricket is not the "highest domestic level" even if a match is afforded List-A status by virtue of the nature of the competition and being played against a higher standard opposition. Even if he happens to be the England over-60s manager, this still fails GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Or are people just willfully neglecting that he was also the head of Badminton England for many years? http://www.badmintonengland.co.uk/news/badminton-england-appoints-new-chief-executive/ This nomination process is a disgrace. No searching of sources whatsoever by the rogue editor who nominated this. 2A02:C7F:7C1D:E000:E839:E110:A19D:7F2D (talk) 21:51, 10 February 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.