Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cortez Jordan

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. (non-admin closure) Erik9 (talk) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cortez Jordan[edit]

Cortez Jordan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

No apparent indication of notability in the article. Common name, but name with umpires only brings up articles from 3 years ago, with no indications of notability in them. No other apparent hits. Shadowjams (talk) 07:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Notability is clearly established in the opening sentence: "Test cricket umpire who stood in 22 Test matches". He is mentioned in plenty of reliable sources. Passes the notability criteria set out here. Cheers. Jevansen (talk) 10:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article asserts notability. The article asserts that he died in 1982, any reason why you would expect him to be currently in the news? AKAF (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nominator makes four claims, all of which are utterly mistaken. Other than that, spot on. Nick mallory (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Notability established within first eight words of article. A reference is provided to confirm it. The article needs expanding, yes, but it's certainly not delete worthy. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I do not think it's clear that being a test cricket umpire is sufficiently notable by itself, and these articles are not immune from the requirement of WP:RS that indicate notability. The references given don't indicate notability, (and they are all the same reference too). In addition, those were added after my nom. At this point the article needs to not only assert notability, but be notable. The assumption repeated here, that hasn't been well explained, is that all test cricket umpires are notable. I think that's a misunderstanding of WP:N. Take a look at List of NBA referees for a point of comparison. The articles that do exist have claims to notability in addition to their status alone.
That said, I've done additional research and found some WP:RS that do mention him outside of merely his position. I'll add those into the article. Shadowjams (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to argue on this one, the NBA is domestic, with Canada thrown in for fun. Test cricket is international. There lies the big difference. I'm not going to argue that the NBA is not-notable, far from it, but the comparison is invalid, the comparison would be valid when you compare the NBA to the England and Wales county circuit. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 19:45, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technically the NBA is international (Canadian teams). I wonder how viewership rankings compare; or what about endorsement money. Sports popularity can be measured in any number of ways. Shadowjams (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And cricket would come out higher than basketball on pretty much all of them. Nick mallory (talk) 09:40, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons given about. Test cricket is the highest level of the game, and those umpiring Tests are surely notable. JH (talk page) 16:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep an international Test umpire. SGGH ping! 16:58, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Test cricket umpire is surely notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jevansen above. Johnlp (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets the general notability guideline "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." -- Mattinbgn\talk 20:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with earlier post that status as test cricket umpire is insufficient to establish notability alone. There needs to be something else, and I don't see it.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 02:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in my view, the umpires in the highest level of an international sporting contest are just as notable as the players. Coretez Jordan is in the top 50 or so Test umpires by number of appearances (see List of Test umpires). There are plenty of reliable sources, there is a clear criterion of notabilty, and Wikipedia is not paper. What is the problem? -- Testing times (talk) 19:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Meets notability guidelines per WP:CRIN. — AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As explained by User:Jevansen above, the criteria in here is absolutely clear about the notability of first-class (let alone Test) umpires. There is no doubt at all that Mr Jordan was a notable cricketing figure. The nominator needs to understand that cricket is a major global sport, not merely a major sport in one country like basketball. --Jack | talk page 17:55, 27 June 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cortez_Jordan&oldid=1070969363"