Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Allen (cricketer, born 1903)

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. The argument to redirect is weakened by the implausibility of the search term; a link to the list at any relevant DAB page would be a good idea. Vanamonde (Talk) 02:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Allen (cricketer, born 1903)[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 one editor. 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) 13:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. This is a selectively edited match report masquerading as a biography. NCRIC is only a presumption of GNG pass, and that presumption has been consistently shown to be near worthless for domestic cricketers with few appearances. Consensus in successive discussions is that NCRIC alone is not justification for a standalones article, and there is clear consensus to redirect articles such as this that fail GNG and SPORTBASIC. There have been countless AFDs (and other discussions) over the past few years to confirm this, and for individuals to persistently defy that consensus and revert such redirects is plainly disruptive (by resulting in this unnecessary discussion) unless substantial sources are provided. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:51, 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} 14:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- A few points: I am going through one list of many problematic cricket biographies now. Many were created by you, some by another editor. I make no distinction in my redirects or AfDs between those, nor am I looking at your contributions to find articles to delete. My issue is with database-based cricket "biographies" for people with no indication that they meet the GNG, not with whoever created them. Your comment about flooding AFD is nothing more than that, your comment. You have no qualms about mass-creating such articles, so why is there an issue with mass-deleting them? Finally, WP:BEFORE: this was done in batches, as you know: the ones with an "A" surname were checked during the RfC, the "B" surnames were checked in two batches when I redirected them. There is no need to do another WP:BEFORE search so soon afterwards after someone indiscriminately reverted the redirects. Fram (talk) 14:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That "other editor" happens to be me. Isn't it odd that the people who have done the most work in enhancing information on this subject - YellowMonkey aside, who we haven't seen around for over ten years - are the ones being targeted? As for the difference between mass-creation and mass-deletion, that is precisely the point. Enhancing and/or censoring information. As it stands, all of mine, Lugnuts, and AA's articles will be deleted. Where does that get us as a project? That's not for the three of us to decide. My next point is not intended confrontationally, but, why aren't people - and I don't mean you, Fram, I respect you a lot - working on much more notable threadbare articles? Is it because they have nothing to offer? Bobo . 17:02, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is logical that the ones who have created the most of these articles, are the ones that will get the most of these redirects or AfDs (assuming all other circumstances are the same). I skip a lot of cricketer articles because they are about (GNG-)notable people, so not all your (or Lugnuts' or ...) articles will be deleted by a wide margin. The "censoring information" can be said of all redirects or AfDs (except hoaxes of course). The scope of enwiki is articles on all notable subjects, all subjects where secondary sources have already produced indepth information: and databases are not considered indepth information. You disagree with this, which is of course acceptable. But that doesn't mean that it overrides the general consensus. Fram (talk) 08:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Not the slightest indication of notability. Can find him taking 8 for 28 and 7 for 24 for Albion YMCA against Grange, but this was just club cricket. Nigej (talk) 15:13, 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) 21:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm (talk) 21:30, 19 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) 18:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for keep's sake. At least there is a team player-by-player list in this case. Bobo . 10:47, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers - does not meet biographical notability guidelines and only just meets NCRIC Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 00:11, 26 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) 18:32, 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.