Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Beckett

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 10:58, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

David Beckett[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable article about a person. Could not find WP:RS online to back this up. Kagundu Talk To Me 08:27, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. MassiveYR ♠ 10:17, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Easily passed WP:NCRIC, and is referenced to Cricket Archive. The nominator somehow missed the Cricinfo entry in his or her online search. A very poor nomination. St Anselm (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Agree with above user: St Anselm (talk) 10:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC) --Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probable delete - meeting NCRIC is not the same thing as meeting the GNG. We can show that he played in one List A match, 20 Minor Counties matches and one Second XI match. OK, so do we have in depth, reliable sourcing for any other aspect of his life or career which provide "significant coverage"? I'm unconvinced that we have anything other than a statistical coverage of his career. If there was non-routine coverage of him in local newspapers covering Oxfordshire and to Devon then I'd be willing to think about whether he is notable or not as an individual. Given the era he played in, however, I'm not convinced that this will be the case. I'll wait to be proven wrong - I wouldn't object to a reasonable time to find alternative sources being allowed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:26, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple sources are required to pass GNG, especially for privacy reasons when the person is alive. The speedy keep attempts are an abuse of process to reinforce the unresonable rules that make Wikipedia so sports-person heavy in its biographical coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:59, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:08, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played just 1 List A Match in which his contribution was insignificant and has retired now the subject technically meets WP:NCRIC as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:30, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

delete lacks RS. Fails GNG. despite the passion of the keeps. was surprised at how poor the coverage is given the passion of the keeps.Dlohcierekim (talk) 02:56, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete – Per this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. The 'weak' is rather because that closure has not been linked or obeyed much, and is not in common use. Also, I will note that less coverage has to be applied for this article to be considered notable. J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 04:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Per J947.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 05:17, 3 October 2017 (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.