Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Bottomley

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. Views split between keep, merge, redirect and delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

George Bottomley[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)

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) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:58, 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} 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:53, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You have posted the same incorrect claims about me (which are not relevant to keeping or deleting this article anyway) at all these AfDs. I hope you will be kind enough to take into account my answer at one of them[1] and correct all your statements accordingly. Fram (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two matches simply doesn't cut it though meeting a project-specific guideline, neither in association football or cricket. There are 100+ precedent discussions that point to this. See this and countless others. Geschichte (talk) 16:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm (talk) 21:38, 19 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 very few matches (recent NSPORT discussion here). Fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:09, 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) 18:21, 24 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) 18:39, 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.