Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Bell (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) Störm   (talk)  17:18, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Bell (cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

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) 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 14:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * 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) 15:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And how do you know I didn't do a WP:BEFORE? These were checked (for WP:BEFORE- when redirecting them three days ago. "The editor is not willing to write a reply at every AfD"? Lugnuts' keep was the same at every AfD, so I wrote a reply once and linked to it from the other AfDs. I am more than willing to write at every AfD, but I didn't see the point for that particular comment. Please don't assume things about me without better evidence. Fram (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It seems like one of the issues that comes up with sports biographies (as well as some other topics, of course) is that because our SNG allows for notability based just on a fact rather than on source coverage, we have lots of articles that basically just present that fact. It seems to me that if there's nothing else that can be said about a set of subjects apart from a few data points, then WP:NOPAGE would apply and we should cover them as a list. Notability doesn't guarantee a stand-alone article, after all, and I don't see how readers are served by having said data scattered about dozens/hundreds of articles rather than neatly available on one page. I see there are lots of related AfDs. I don't intend to post this elsewhere, but the same thing probably applies. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the entire issue. We're literally deleting facts. What makes people scared of facts? Longer pages contain facts too, they're just under 20 pages of waffle. Bobo. 17:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. I'm uneasy about deleting these early NZ cricketers. This particular chap played 12 first-class matches, which given the limited number played during that time is substanstial to suggest he was a half decent player and there is a strong likelihood that there is a full bio of this hanging about somewhere. There is a very competent editor who contributes to articles on NZ cricketers who should really have been consulted first. StickyWicket (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * How does that compare with Australia? Just wondering, not challenging. Bobo. 22:55, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NCRIC as per above. Setreis (talk) 08:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The problem is that many people who pass NCRIC turn out to be not notable after all, as there aren't sufficient non-database sources about them. Now, someone like this, with 12 matches, has a better chance of being notable than a 1- or 2-match player, but it's up to the ones wanting to keep this (and these) to actually show this. NCRIC simply means "we think he will meet GNG", but when challenged it needs to be shown that this is actually true. I'll happily withdraw any AfDs where this is the case (I already did for one), but blanket "played X matches, meets NCRIC" simply aren't convincing or sufficient. Fram (talk) 12:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wish people who were keen to delete articles would be equally as keen to contribute to the cricket project. There will come a point where deleting every article myself, AA, Lugnuts, and 02blythed have ever written will appear a tad extreme. Why don't the people who send articles for deletion contribute to the project? Is it because they have nothing to offer? Bobo. 12:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Why? A much better solution would be that people who want to write about cricket focus just a bit more on quality, on content: having good articles (not GA, but articles with actual biographical information and an actual overview of someone's life and career, not just one database-scraped fact from it) is much more useful to readers. Create lists of players with minimal information (years, number of games), and then spin out actual articles from these when you have enough information to make it worthwhile to have a separate article. An article like A. Bouch should not exist, not for cricket, not for any other job or hobby. Perhaps more information exists: but the right order is to find information and then write an article with it, not write "articles" and then hope (and claim) that information has to exist, somewhere. This goes for all kind of topics, and I redirect or ask for deletion across a wide range of topics: cricket is one that caught my attention (and not just mine) as having a problem. I also nominated groups of articles for e.g. heraldry, computer games, ... when it looked as if these were being created too indiscriminately, without the necessary indepth sources. From the person on the receiving end of such redirects or AfDs, it may look as if they personally get targeted, but the issue is not with the person, but with the articles. Fram (talk) 13:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There is no more necessary "biographical" information to be added. And any other non-biographical and non-career piece of information is simply trivia. Everything other than what is written in this, or any other, article, is simply waffle. If there were no article on any given NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA, or MLS player, every single person who contributes to the project would be asking why. Why is cricket being seen as a special case? Are we really working to that level of bias? Bobo. 13:37, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is a very minimalist approach to enwiki. We are a textbased encyclopedia, if you want a database-format encyclopedia something like Wikidata is more suited. In an encyclopedia, people expect background to the bare figures. This isn't trivia. For example, are these people professional players, or people with a different job who occasionally or on a regular basis play cricket? If someone plays one game for Otago, then what did he do otherwise? When people read an article about a person, they want their main achievements, but also a general background about them. Without that background, they are simply a bunch of numbers. I don't know why you keep banging on as if all articles are up for deletion: no one is asking or proposing this, it would be ridiculous. The 'bias' you talk about partly probably exists (if there are other sports where people get articles without having coverage, then those should be dealt with as well), but also ignores the fact that all sports are different: all sports have, depending on the country, gender, age, ... a different level of coverage, and whether we have articles should solely be based on that, not on "but what about soccer, cycling, golf, flyfishing, netball, quidditch, ...": some sports, and the players in that sport, are more notable than others. A player with the same amount of coverage should have as much right to an article in sport X as in sport Y; but a player with the same achievement in sport X does not necessarily have the same amount of coverage as someone with that same achievement in sport Y. Fram (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

*Delete fails WP:GNG. Non-notable cricketer. Störm  (talk)  21:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Twelve first-class matches over six years is quite a substantial cricket career at that time. Without trying too hard, I can find references that have him as the captain of the Otago team in some of these games. Johnlp (talk) 13:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete and Merge to list of Otago representative players. He is not mentioned in Wisden obituaries 1947 addition so wasn't notable enough. Merge his record to the list so it is still kept.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment A big article expansion was done last night (thanks Paora). Maybe the deletionist !votes would like to to take a look. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:16, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have given up after 10 or so passing mentions and routine reports. Is there anything substantial about Bell hidden inside those many refs? Fram (talk) 10:54, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yep, in the 26 refs in the article. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts, if you have nothing to answer but snark, then please don't bother. Fram (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Fram, you asked a question, you didn't like the answer. Not sure how that's snark. The article clearly meets GNG. Infact, it did before this AfD started.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:33, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If not snark, then spectacularly unhelpful. Fram (talk) 15:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please Fram, what answer do you expect to be given, when you asked a question and wished to receive an answer? As I said above, it all depends on what you wish to be included in the article. An expanded article like this shows that the cricket project would probably benefit from notice being given beforehand that an article fails to pass an individual's personal preference regarding prose material, especially regarding majority English-language country players, where material should be easier to come across. There are many Test and ODI cricketers - of much "greater" notability, relatively speaking - with dismal amounts of information. Why not work to expand these, or complain about these instead? Or better still, do the work yourself instead of complaining. That's what members of the cricket project have been busy doing for the last 16 years. Why can't other people do the same? Are they just admitting they don't know enough about a subject? Bobo. 18:44, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:CRIN. CreativeNorth (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - if you wish for information to be found, and are unwilling to do so yourself, mention it in a place where you know people will be able to find information. This is a better way of making people find source material to add, rather than sending everything to AfD. Bobo. 19:06, 22 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, although this is a little marginal. It's not unreasonable to suggest that playing first-class cricket in a reasonable league is a fairly notable thing to have done. Given the weight of passing references, I'm happy enough to keep here. I don't think it's a strong keep, but it seems reasonable given the number of matches he played. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Articles like this are the reason it's important to come to the right place to find sources before blindly nominating for deletion. Bobo. 19:30, 24 January 2021 (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.