Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Cricketer


 * 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. (non-admin closure) CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

American Cricketer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD (a reference was added when the tag was removed). While the history of cricket in the US is notable, I don't see any specific notability about this particular publication about that topic, unless its 52-year lifespan equates to notability. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 22:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:17, 6 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Reference provided proves that the periodical exists, but no evidence that it is notable. From the ref provided you can read some editions, which may be useful as refs on other articles. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Based on comments below, I'm removing my vote Spike &#39;em (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * It was a magazine published between 1877 to 1929, so almost inevitably internet sources are rather thin, but Christie's recently described it as "historically important", and it is mentioned in this book as "the devoted organ of the sport" Other sources comment on its longevity and importance at the time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.198.171 (talk) 22:25, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

We have a strange situation on Wikipedia that will take a lot of untangling to resolve, but the fact that a 50 year magazine can even be considered for deletion is utterly bizarre and reflects a ongoing situation that GNG is not fit for purpose anymore. What was once a guide to prevent spammy articles is now a blunt tool used to delete information about really existing thingsa that were notable to many people.Egaoblai (talk) 04:43, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep I can see no reason why this should be deleted. The periodical certainly existed as referenced. arguments based on notability are entirely subjective. A periodical lasting that long is certainly worthy of inclusion into this encyclopedia.Egaoblai (talk) 10:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete it existed for 50 years is not enough. No evidence of significant coverage in independent reliable sources as required by WP:GNG. And the above argument that "notability is entirely subjective" is wrong, we have clear objective guidelines for notability at WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a WP:CSB problem for pre-internet notability, in that the necessary sources to demonstrate notability are tucked away in archives of dead trees, so I cut them a bit more slack than some detail of David Beckham's life that is recorded to the nth degree. But I'd suggest that the fact that an Australian newspaper reported the death of someone whose only notability was editing this publication suggests that the publication itself had an international reputation at the time. I know that snippet doesn't prove notability in itself, but it gives me confidence that you would find evidence of notability if you delved into the archives. So I'd give it the benefit of the doubt.Le Deluge (talk) 15:05, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Le Deluge.  Greenbörg  (talk)  15:21, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Half a century of publication is enough. WP:IAR and a GNG pass to boot. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Also: mention in Frank L. Mott, A History of American Magazines, 1865-1885, pg. 220. Carrite (talk) 15:21, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I also believe that, judging by the extensive use of the publication in the footnotes, that the publication also likely garners substantial coverage in Ryan Swanson and David K. Wiggins (eds.), Philly Sports: Teams, Games, and Athletes from Rocky's Town, although the relevant pages are not accessible on the interwebs. Carrite (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * The publication also gains coverage on page 127 of The Tented Field: A History of Cricket in America,by Tom Melville, although this, once again, is not available to be viewed on the web. Carrite (talk) 15:56, 12 September 2017 (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.