Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gideon Barnard

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 redirect to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 19:32, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gideon Barnard[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)

A single appearance in a professional game is no longer considered sufficient for inclusion. I did not locate any significant coverage of Barnard, and ~~there is no player list for his team to redirect to.~~ ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As there is now a list, I am happy for this to close as redirect instead of delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and South Africa. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. "...and there is no player list for his team to redirect to". The create one! This is the very kind of 'laizness' I find most frustrating on here where people leave it to others to do stuff, much like the orphan taggers *sighs* StickyWicket (talk) 11:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it's that easy, you could have just made one instead of spending the time to insult me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or you could have, you know, be constructive and build an encyclopedia... StickyWicket (talk) 09:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have the guidance of WP:NSPORTS2022 now and that makes this sort of easy: fails WP:GNG. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 18:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of South Western Districts cricketers (unless there's a better name?) in the long term. In the short term, while someone finds the time to create this, an alternative redirect would be simply South Western Districts (cricket team). List of South Western Districts representative cricketers - now created using a red link and the data from the category. It's incomplete but easier for other people to work on if we have something to go on (added UTC: 08:39).

It's entirely possible that something can be found about chaps like this with enough access. That makes deletion inappropriate as we lose the page history, attribution etc... But it'll take a while for someone to create the list if you want a complete list. If you don't mind an incomplete one in the short term then that's easy to sort out.

On the subject of WP:NSPORTS2022, the RfC which led to that specifically included the requirement to grandfather articles. This has been ignored, but the most relevant proposal which passed specifically included that and it was never removed from the proposal. If you want to delete the article based only on WP:NSPORTS2022 then that grandfathering needs to be respected. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There have been plenty of AfDs of sportspeople since that RfC with consensus to delete. I have never heard anyone at any of those discussions bring up a supposed grandfather clause that states that older articles cannot be deleted for failing to have sourcing. I just re-read Wugapodes' close and I don't see a requirement for grandfathering or even a reference to deletion processes. Could you quote the passage where they found consensus for that, please? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sub-Proposal 3, which was the one that deals with single appearance criteria, has as its final line "There should also be some type of grandfathering so that if passed, there is not a sudden rush for AFD.". That received very little discussion and was never removed from the proposal. It's been ignored by everyone who's attempted to enforce the RfC. I suspect because it was never properly discussed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 04:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reading the actual discussion (under Sdkb's comment that starts "Object to grandfathering"), Masem clarified that he intended any such grandfathering to be temporary to prevent a mass rush to AfD older articles, not to prevent their deletion under the new sourcing requirements for all time: I meant by grandfathering in that existing articles would be subject to this but after some sunsetting period to give editors fair time to try to improve. Not that old articles would be protected.

Your interpretation is inconsistent with what Masem intended and how the community has been handling the deletion of sportspeople articles since the end of this RfC. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure it is. But that doesn't change what was actually passed at the RfC - and the sunsetting period has been ignored by anyone who has implemented it. What sort of sunsetting period would you suggest? Because there's an argument that runs that Masem's intentions have also been ignored by the community when it implemented the RfC close.

You'll note that I have not suggested we keep the article. Although the chances are that with access to the right media sources we might be able to scrape something together on Barnard, the chances are that we'd be scraping a little too much. My objection is with using the new version of NSPORTS as a direct deletion rationale. If this article had come to AfD before that RfC I'd have suggested redirection then as well for the same reasons - check my AfD record if you've not convinced - but it concerns me that the rationale will end up being used for hundreds of articles where there are suitable sources that can be found. It can take days to pull them together appropriately and take hours of work - see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alfred Hollings. We can handle one or two of those at once. Not hundreds. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that there is sufficient mention of opposition to a grandfathering clause in the comments to indicate that there was no consensus for one. Perhaps it was negligent of Wugs not to discount it explicitly in their close, but the time to raise that was six months ago when the RfC closed, not now at an individual AfD. In any case, even if there had been consensus for an undefined grandfathering period, six months is surely sufficient that it has now run out, so the argument about it is pointless either way. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Worth pointing out that there's clearly coverage of SWD matches in Afrikaans media - this article for example, although it doesn't mention Barnard at all. Worth looking out for in other cases. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:55, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of South Western Districts representative cricketers I'm not finding enough sourcing for a GNG pass, despite his appearance for the team, however there's a suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 10:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. It would be one thing if those talking about a sunset clause felt that, given time, they could find sources. It would also be another thing if we were seeing repeated mass AfDs. In the event that Blue Square Thing's concerns about mass AfDs comes to pass, we can deal with it then and hopefully put a stop to it. But for now, I'm not seeing a convincing argument to keep. The fact that someone might abuse the new guideline at some unspecified point in the future and this might lead to articles being deleted that should be kept, is irrelevant to the present time. If Blue Square Thing feels that people are creating inappropriate mass AfDs now, that would be a different story and I'd reconsider my !vote. Smartyllama (talk) 18:00, 29 June 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.