Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rhodes (cricketer, born 1883): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 08:29, 17 March 2021

William Rhodes (cricketer, born 1883)

[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)

No obituary on his death, nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG - the references are to a statistical database and the 2011 club yearbook, which "contains detailed records of various matches played in the 2010 season." I don't have access, but I wouldn't expect anything there apart from historical statistics/what's in the Cricprofile source. Furthermore, other sports frequently delete players who barely pass the SNG. This barely passes WP:NCRIC with only one match, and that SNG isn't finely tuned to predict when someone is notable anyways. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What do you call a doctor who barely passes his exams? That's right, it's Doctor. If an article "barely passes" WP:NCRIC then it passes. He's a first class cricketer, so he's notable because of that. The whole point of wikipedia is to be comprehensive, and there's no point of having a list of every first class cricketer who's played for Yorkshire if some players are left out. The article gives full details of the game he played, there's no doubt about his existence or first class status, so he should stay in. Nick mallory (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 :<small class="delsort-notice">Note:  This discussion has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/England|list of England-related deletion discussions]]. [[User:Shellwood|Shellwood]] ([[User talk:Shellwood|talk]]) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)</small>
 *'''Delete''' fails [[WP:GNG]] - the references are to a statistical database and the 2011 club yearbook, which "contains detailed records of various matches played in the 2010 season." I don't have access, but I wouldn't expect anything there apart from historical statistics/what's in the Cricprofile source. Furthermore, other sports frequently delete players who barely pass the SNG. This barely passes [[WP:NCRIC]] with only one match, and that SNG isn't finely tuned to predict when someone is notable anyways. Fails [[WP:GNG]]. [[User:SportingFlyer|SportingFlyer]] ''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:top;">[[User talk:SportingFlyer|T]]</span>''·''<span style="font-size:small; vertical-align:bottom;">[[Special:Contributions/SportingFlyer|C]]</span>'' 23:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' What do you call a doctor who barely passes his exams?  That's right, it's Doctor.  If an article "barely passes" [[WP:NCRIC]] then it passes.  He's a first class cricketer, so he's notable because of that.  The whole point of wikipedia is to be comprehensive, and there's no point of having a list of every first class cricketer who's played for Yorkshire if some players are left out.  The article gives full details of the game he played, there's no doubt about his existence or first class status, so he should stay in.  [[User:Nick mallory|Nick mallory]] ([[User talk:Nick mallory|talk]]) 08:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)