Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marc Rosenberg (cricketer)

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) CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 11:35, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Rosenberg (cricketer)[edit]

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

Delete. No citations to verify information and the article is full of POV statements. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:41, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Passes WP:NCRIC as a First-class cricketer, which the nominator should have known. St Anselm (talk) 20:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He may well be, but there are no citations and the article is full of POV crap. I'm not going to waste time on it so I think it should be deleted as a very bad article. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So - remove the crap. There's a link to cricinfo there, which confirms that he is, in fact, a FC cricketer. St Anselm (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or are you saying you can't be bothered editing it so you think it should be deleted? St Anselm (talk) 20:49, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to build an encyclopedia. Not nominate articles for deletion because we can't be bothered to clean then up. AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC and has played first-class cricket for four different sides. Johnlp (talk) 21:06, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above. WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. AusLondonder (talk) 22:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As they pass WP:NCRIC. If you've removed the rubbish and they're still not-notable, then I'd support a delete (on this, or any other article). Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 07:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have just added an infobox to the article. He clearly passes WP:NCRIC with 14 first-class and 6 list A matches played. I must agree with the comments above, this article required cleanup not an AfD nomination – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:22, 2 April 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.