Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Austin (cricketer)

Add links
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. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Austin (cricketer)

[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Thomas Austin (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" (123), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they "have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. As seen above, the nominator is not willing the write a reply at everey AfD. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • You have posted the same incorrect claims about me (which are not relevant to keeping or deleting this article anyway) at all these AfDs. I hope you will be kind enough to take into account my answer at one of them[1] and correct all your statements accordingly. Fram (talk) 16:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Lambert would like to revist the article following the expansion. I wonder what WP:BEFORE work Lambert did before adding his standard boiler-plate !DELETE vote to every single AfD he's ever commented on. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable early Otago cricket and rugby representative. Meets WP:NCRIC having played nine first-class matches for Otago over 12 seasons, and remembered as a fine all-rounder in newspaper reports in the 1940s, over 50 years after he finished playing. Also played five rugby matches for Otago in the early days of interprovincial rugby, and was one of the pioneer orchardists in the Tasman area, which would go on to become one of the main apple-growing areas of New Zealand. Paora (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers or just Delete; the only suitable page for ordinary team members with no notable responsibility. A few newspaper mentions would otherwise qualify about 8-10 million more people for WP articles.--Muirofsara (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The bio, in its current form (30 Jan), demonstrates that he was notable beyond just cricket; GNG has been shown. Schwede66 19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The obituaries clearly provide the coverage required to establish notability under WP:GNG, which has absolutely nothing to do with importance or distinction. Even if Austin failed WP:NCRIC, which he does not, that policy is *only* relevant where a subject does not have GNG notability. I find it amazing that Fram should be redirecting articles without going through the AfD process first. That no doubt over-rides the good practice of notifying the creator. If we were dealing with a print encyclopaedia, some deletionism would be needed, but we are not, and it is now the greatest handicap WP suffers from. Moonraker (talk) 18:05, 30 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Austin_(cricketer)&oldid=1073214165"