Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ronald Eckersley
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 CTJF83 chat 21:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ronald Eckersley[edit]
- Ronald Eckersley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Cricketer who played one game for Yorkshire against the RAF. No sources beyond cricket database info. It may be argued that that meets the terms of WP:ATHLETE, but I do not think that one game justifies it. Quantpole (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Polarpanda (talk) 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CRIN and WP:ATHLETE. First-class appearance confers notability. Johnlp (talk) 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 02:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep – WP:ATHLETE says "People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport", not "People who have competed in X number of games at the fully professional level of a sport". Even one appearance for a pro side is sufficient for an article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. WP:ATHLETE is a guideline to when someone is generally presumed notable. It does not mean we must have an article if someone passes. Apologies for using a bit of common sense. Quantpole (talk) 08:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep A first class cricketer and therefore notable. 'Common sense' might be better employed in not pointlessly trying to overturn a long standing guideline on notability which everyone else accepts. Nick mallory (talk) 11:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Not everyone accepts this policy: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc etc. If anything WP:ATHLETE is the most contested notability guideline. On the basis of policy following practice, I thought I would see whether this uneasiness with the guideline is reflected at AfD. From the same game that Ronald played in, you've also got Neville Shelmerdine]. He didn't bat or bowl, and that was his only game, but he has played first class cricket and so must be notable enough for an article? Quantpole (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the result of this AFD will give you some idea about the relative merits of our arguments. Thanks for your tip about Neville Shelmerdine, I'm doing an article on him right now.
- Comment. Not everyone accepts this policy: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc etc. If anything WP:ATHLETE is the most contested notability guideline. On the basis of policy following practice, I thought I would see whether this uneasiness with the guideline is reflected at AfD. From the same game that Ronald played in, you've also got Neville Shelmerdine]. He didn't bat or bowl, and that was his only game, but he has played first class cricket and so must be notable enough for an article? Quantpole (talk) 12:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:CRIN. Harrias (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2010 (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.