Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Machin

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. BD2412 T 23:25, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Machin[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)

Fails WP:NOTABILITY due to a single soruce which is the person's own personal website (Which is inaccsessible due to a subscription being required for verification) and also the fact that he seems to have provided little contribution to cricket. Theprussian (talk) 20:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - the website isn't my "own personal site". That is a lie. Please do not send articles to deletion just because you don't know anything about the reference. Can someone please help by adding a reference to CI and reformatting the references accordingly, as I've forgotten how it's done these days. Links do not need removing simply because they "require subscription". If you wish for the references to be checked and/or amended, please ask in the appropriate place. For someone who is "fed up" with the userbase and their "stuck up nature", who don't help editors who wish to "edit or create articles", who has only created five articles in the last two and a half years, and would rather send them to deletion, this is an odd frame of mind to be in. Please do not post the AfD notice in the wrong place, either. Bobo. 20:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Whoa, calm down. I never said this is your "own personal site", by that I meant that the only reference for the person discussed in the article is their own personal site. Secondly, I looked up any sources on this player and got nothing. Also the fact I have created only 5 articles in 2 years has nothing to do with the AFD, please keep the argument relevant to this discussion. I am not personally attacking you, I created this AFD as a way of discussing whether it is appropriate to continue to keep a record of this person on Wikipedia - a democratic and fair process. You are welcome to argue why/why not but please provide reasonable discusssion. Ps. DO NOT accuse me of dishonesty.Theprussian (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he is a notable cricketer ... --Roisterer (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NCRIC, played only minor counties cricket and therefore fails the "played at the highest international or domestic level" criterion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.22.80 (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is factually incorrect, please read the article more carefully, and please log in if you want your !vote to count. Bobo . 11:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bobo192 how is it factually incorrect? He played a single match between Bedfordshire and Northumberland, both of which are minor counties. A match between two minor counties is not the "highest domestic level". That's like saying anyone who plays in the first round of the FA Cup is notable for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.22.80 (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The match had List A status, doesn't matter if they were minor counties or not. StickyWicket (talk) 19:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Has played in a List A match, therefore passing WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Does NCRIC cover this even if this match was over 40 years ago? Theprussian (talk) 13:51, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as notability is not temporary. There are thousands and thousands of sportspeople on WP (not just cricketers) who've made one start in their sport from 40+ years ago (and more). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I wonder how many of those one-appearance names have been deleted in comparison with cricketers who meet the same criteria. For that matter, I bet there are hundreds of initialed names in those lists too. But you know. Life wouldn't be fun if we ran by clearly definable rules, would it? Bobo . 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." WP:NSPORTS we are sort of clutching at straws here. Tbh, I think most of these token articles should be purged from this site or merged into one super list. But alas. Democracy Rules :/ Theprussian (talk) 22:29, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ever noticed how every single word of that guideline is a weasel word? "Does not mean"? "Must be kept"? You mean we're going to randomly go off our own opinions rather than actually having workable criteria or even working to indefinable and indefensible criteria like GNG? This is how Wikipedia becomes destroyed and worthless. Bobo . 23:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played List A cricket, the highest domestic level of one-day cricket. StickyWicket ([[User
Comment. Anyone else find the random appearance of an IP just slightly suspicious? No, just me? StickyWicket (talk) 19:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the random appearance of an IP which is suspicious, it's someone randomly taking an article to AfD without knowing anything about the topic that saddens them so much. Bobo . 20:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a 2 line article passes the arbritrary regulation set by WP:NCRIC (which is funnily enough, set be these Wikiproject in charge of the cricket project and not be an indepndent group) - it does not mean we need to keep 6 million 2 line articles about some non-important players. Why can't we just have a list? This issue has been raised before many times and any civil debate is pretty much shutdown. Theprussian (talk) 22:33, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:If you believe, with your knowledge of the subject and its sources, you can improve these articles, go ahead. Complaining that other people haven't done the work that you're protesting against, when most of the work I did was ten years ago or more, is slightly contradictory, and, frankly, insulting to the work I've put in and the aims and goals of the project. People randomly deciding to become exclusionists purely for the sake of destroying the goals of a project, means Wikipedia can no longer attain its goal of being the sum of all knowledge. As for CRIN, it is identical to every other competitive team sport guideline. If this debate were going on in any other team sport, the exclusionists would probably be topic-banned... Bobo . 23:03, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be assuming this is a personal attack on yourself - it really isn't. Every person who has edited Wikipedia has had bits written out or deleted entirely, it part of being apart of this project. I'm just sharing my view on this matter - that's all.Theprussian (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusionism is an insult to the cricketing project and its members who have spent the last 15 years expanding knowledge of the subject. I will continue to maintain over and over that the conversation where we determined that NSPORT was too inclusive and should be beneath other "guidelines" was a complete mess and without any form of consensus, as I have suggested here. Note Herostratus' comment regarding the sense that any article should have "sufficient good sources" - please feel free to remove every single reference to CA if you wish - "some reasonable number of people would be interested in the article" - why else do we have a dedicated project - and that "somebody can be bothered to actually create the article". When I look back at the articles I created in my early days, there was so much "low-hanging fruit" in terms of footballer articles. Of course I "can be bothered". "Could be bothered", I should say. I can't any more, my work is being attacked and deemed unwelcome. Bobo . 23:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but only because he played a significant number of minor county championship matches. This convinces me that there will almost certainly be sources which deal with him in a reasonable level of detail - year books, newspaper reports etc... I certainly don't believe that his single List A appearance makes him notable in itself - and if that was all we knew about him I would argue for a redirect to the list of Beds cricketers. From a technical point of view there are a number of reasons why WP:NCRIC is flawed in cases such as this.

None of this is a criticism of the nominator. The paywalled source is difficult to access and it's from there that I was able to see how much minor counties cricket he had played which is the only reason for my keep vote. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I could always expand on details of his Minor Counties career, but frankly any material other than his career details is just excess bumf. As is the case for every other first-class cricketer. But still people expect an article to be full of excess flowery nonsense. Without facts an article is useless. And if people expect more than facts, then they're in the wrong place. The article still remains identical to how I created it eleven years ago. If anyone is upset with the prose text of an article, then... um... fix it? Of course it's not a criticism of the nominator. I still can't help but feel victimized. And please convince me I should feel otherwise. If this has been randomly sent to AfD, you might as well do the same with 80 percent of my article creations. Bobo . 11:09, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some level of detail sourced from prose sources rather than being obvious statistical synthesis from scorecards and the like. Or the hope that this might be possible to do at least. Which is why, in this case, I tend towards keep. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete minor counties competition is exactly that minor, and we should not keep articles just because someone somewhere wrote down about minor sports competitions. Any reasonable standard for inclusion would delete this article, and a lot of other sub-standard cricket articles that we have. Cricket and football are both crying out for us to rid outselves of the huge number of articles on people who in any other place we long ago would have recognized were just run of the mill and do not merit an article. There and alos we have a lot of articles on run of the mill actors we need to scrap.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:53, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The match had List A status, regardless of whether the team(s) involved also played in the Minor Counties Championship. You are either voting on a false premise or not understanding the status of the match. We cannot simply remove every article of every player from Beds, etc, etc, just because these teams also happened to play Minor Counties cricket. Otherwise there would be no categories for these players. If you wish to complain that the brightline criteria of some subject(s) allow for more defined rules than the fluffy criteria of others, an AfD conversation is not the place to do it, and this should be raised on their pages, not ours. Why are people so keen to state that a "reasonable standard for inclusion" should exist without suggesting what it should be? Is that because everything happens to be fine as it is? And is your complaint that the articles are "run of the mill" or the people themselves? You seem to be trying to make two points at once and failing at both. Bobo . 08:45, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Nom's claim that citations are from site run by subject are patently false, and the bit about a subscription needed is completely irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NCRIC played in List A cricket, and passes WP:GNG with reliable sources. Wm335td (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC which provides a presumption of notability. Johnlp (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2020 (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.