Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexander Gale


 * 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 redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Clear consensus not to have a standalone. ATD close. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Alexander Gale

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Doesn't have the necessary notability for a stand-alone article. While he meets the basic requirements of WP:NCRIC, that guideline is disputed at the moment just because there are too many people who meet it without having significant sources about them, only databases and routine match reports.

I had redirected this page to List of Otago representative cricketers, a solution I still support: when the redirect was undone, two passing mentions in newspapers were added (a name in a long list of names), and the online cenotaph, descibed as "the database will contain a record for every person who has served for our country on active service.", and which contains all kinds of information, including that provided by the families. Basically, an online memorial without indications of notability for the people recorded. Actual sources about his cricketing career are missing, and his military career wasn't particularly distinctive either. Fram (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:NCRIC. The guideline is being disputed by Fram, so take that for what it's worth. Article was redirected, then expanded. At worst, restore the redirect.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). I'm hardly the only one disputing it, general agreement is for either scrapping it or rewriting it to make it a lot tighter. Fram (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. 2020 marked the year that specialist projects could no longer make inclusions based on guidelines contrary to Wikipedia's general guidelines. The folks in WikiProject Football have taken this on board, and started deleting articles—by the numbers—on players with only 1 to 5 pro-tier games. Rugby has been cleaned up recently, and now the turn has come to cricket. Including players who are written about only in a couple of match reports, trivial or non-independent news is no longer feasible in Wikipedia, though it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (although redirecting is often okay), and in this case there is no sensible reason for keeping. Geschichte (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete these specialized inclusions have not followed anything approaching GNG and have lead to a lot of under sourced, unneeded junk articles in Wikipedia. It is time to cut back on these and go to a place where all articles meet GNG, which this one does not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This FAILS WP:NCRIC because SPORTCRIT on the same page says "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases." It also says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Author needs to stop creating zero-notability perma-substub "articles", whether they've played just the bare one match or not. Reywas92Talk 18:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a notable topic, and I would also like to add that I agree with User:Johnpacklambert 100% where we are seeing a large amount of awful articles being kept due to essays relating to notability instead of GNG. Thanks, Andrew nyr  talk  contribs  23:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Note that the article was expanded somewhat since the four !votes were added. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. The only sources we have are databases, match scorecards, routine local cricket reports, service listings, family announcements and electoral rolls. None of this establishes notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:47, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has been expanded with multiple sources in the last 24 hours. Gale played in a top-level competition with first-class status and so must be presumed notable per the SNG. Notability is confirmed by means of the additional sources cited. He should be included in the Otago list anyway. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * None of the added sources indicate any notability though, they are passing mentions or one extremely local source. Fram (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. OK for a family-history, but we need much more than that. Nigej (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Otago representative cricketers. I appreciate that there are some sources, and if there was a paragraph or two in a book about Otago cricketers which dealt with him in just a little bit of detail, I think I'd be happy that I could keep the article. Maybe - this is the sort of thing that needs some sort of general consensus arrived at. Redirect has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, as subject of article meets WP:NCRIC, having played a first-class match in New Zealand. I note that WP:NCRIC is currently under discussion, but until such time as that discussion is concluded, to delete would be putting the cart before the horse. When / if WP:NCRIC changes, then this deletion discussion could be revisited if the article no longer meets the revised WP:NCRIC. Paora (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The other way to look at this is whether NCRIC is working as NSPORTS intends, does this subject meet GNG? If NCRIC is found to too be loose, there is no reason hold off on analyzing this cricketer now instead of dragging it back up in a couple months. Doing these kind of source evaluations now are useful as evidence for proving or disproving currently utilized SNGs as appropriate guidelines. Yosemiter (talk) 18:25, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * 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.