Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Forward

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. There is a weak consensus that the article can be improved instead of deleted. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Forward

[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)

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I wonder if sources can be found regarding the tour of Namibia. In any case, information for X Cricket Board cricketers may be significantly harder to come by than for X county (not County Championship, necessarily) cricketers. Bobo . 20:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notabilty. scope_creep^Talk 17:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did try for the Namibia MCC tour, but "Namibia" + "MCC" produced only one unrelated response for 1st July 2000 to 30th June 2001 in both The Times (runs up to 2014) and The Guardian and Observer (runs up to 2003) digital archives, so he has no claim to notability based even on that. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another in a long line of non-notable cricket players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Fails NCRIC, but there are sources with significant coverage which makes this a borderline GNG pass. Article expanded. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:21, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To evaluate the expansion by Wjemather.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing List A cricket. Although this is a pretty minimal pass. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:15, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DevaCat1: Sorry but that is incorrect. CRIN is a project essay that has no community standing, especially in AFD discussions. The guideline is NCRIC, which unfortunately enjoys very little community support in respect of domestic cricketers due to being overly permissive. It is also merely a presumption of GNG-level coverage. Offering a WP:VAGUEWAVE at such weak guidelines carries very little weight at AFD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, Wjemather, I think you're wrong here, and what you have said in your reply does little to support your contentions. WP:VAGUEWAVE is of literally no relevance, as that would require that I haven't said why WP:CRIN is met. Rather, you will see that I specifically said that it is met by virtue of playing List A cricket. Please don't cite guidelines that are clearly of no relevance against me. Moreover, WP:CRIN is both on the front page of WikiProject Cricket, and states in terms that "his is the expanded detail of the agreed guidelines, that are summarised in the Cricket section of the Notability (sports) guidelines." It is also of no importance whatsoever whether you think that NCRIC enjoys community support- the notability guideline exists (albeit that this is a summary of the full guideline in WP:CRIN), and is the relevant one here. If you can say why I have incorrectly applied the guidelines, then please do so, and that would be appreciated by all concerned, rather than us getting dragged into irrelevant points. DevaCat1 (talk) 19:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DevaCat1: It isn't me saying it, it is the wider community: this; this; this, to list just three – there are also dozens of recent AFDs to confirm this. Passing NCRIC (or pretty much any of NSPORT) is not an automatic pass to a standalone article, especially when that pass is trivial, nominal or illusionary. You are also drawing an equivalence between List A and "highest-level" that simply doesn't exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:32, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather: I could point to the same discussion and note a wide range of comments in support of WP:NCRIC; in any case, your comment breaches WP:VOTE if you think that simply counting comments supports your view. The number of AFDs would not even pass the criterion of being a vote, as 80% of recent AFDs in cricket are from a single user, and therefore indicative of nothing. First class and List A matches are defined as such by the ICC Classification of Official Cricket document, which provides a clear, objective and independent criterion which is followed around the world. There is no domestic standard above those levels, irrespective of which sides the match is between. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I very much doubt that, but if you do find such a discussion outside of WP:CRIC, let me know. You are misunderstanding the ICC's role, the criteria they lay down and how the various national bodies apply them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:33, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: 1 List-A match and a few bits mean it just scrapes on WP:GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:27, 26 February 2021 (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.