Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariko Hill (2nd nomination)

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 17:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mariko Hill[edit]

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

Non-notable women's cricketer. Hasn't played a major women's cricket match, so fails WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. The tour of Bangladesh she was on didn't involve major matches. The Asian Twenty20 Championship she played in is also a minor tourament, whose matches don't hold Women's Twenty20 International status (Hong Kong played Bhutan, China and Singapore, so hardly surprising). Google search also brings up hardly any reliable sources for wider notability. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:35, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the nominator: playing for Hong Kong is clearly not playing at the top-level of amateur women's cricket: more or less all women's cricket in amateur, so she would need to be playing for one of the top women's teams in the world. No evidence of notability. Harrias ^talk 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree she fails WP:CRIN, but on reading the article and seeing that she made her debut for Hong Kong at age 12, I thought that significant coverage would be easy to find. However, that wasn't the case – I could find only passing mentions of Hill, nothing that could be considered in-depth or significant coverage (and many of the sources were all non-independent). Happy to change my mind if someone has better luck than me locating sources. Jenks24 (talk) 19:46, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And what about the sources cited in the article? How are they not significant coverage? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There's only two sources: [1] is a Cricinfo profile that contains no prose, which I do not consider significant coverage; [2], published by Hong Kong Education City, is a bit better in that it tells us a bit about Hill, but I'm not about the reliability and independence of the source, especially considering the article finishes with "Visit the website of the Hong Kong Cricket Club and Kowloon Cricket Club if you want to learn to play. They have regular coaching sessions for beginners." Would you care to explain why you believe either is significant coverage? Jenks24 (talk) 22:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 23:53, 19 March 2012 (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.