Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheraldine Oudolf


 * 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 Netherlands women ODI cricketers. It is not substantially contested here that the kind of sources required by WP:GNG have not been found after two weeks of searching. That being the case, the "keep" opinions are so weak that they have to be discounted: they use arguments now rejected by community consensus, i.e., that playing at a certain level of sports automatically establishes notability. That the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet invalidates their opinion, but not that of the other participants in this AfD.  Sandstein  09:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Cheraldine Oudolf

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket,  and Netherlands. Sistorian (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I found exactly 2 sources in which she is mentioned, I don't think this meets WP:SIGCOV. WCM email 08:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Bizarre nomination. Played in two World Cups, holds the Dutch record for best women's ODI bowling figures. Beeeggs (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I would be happy to change my comment if you can provide sources. I suggested delete because after searching for sources I find 2 google hits. I did my own name and got 900,000. WCM email 12:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I too had no luck on Google. I do not see what is bizarre, or even wrong, about nominating an article that so completely fails the significant coverage requirement. In my opinion, we must place emphasis on quality over quantity. I doubt if you will find Cheraldine in Britannica, for example. Articles about cricketers are fine if there is significant coverage because the player is well known or has accomplished an outstanding achievement, but to try and fill mainspace with articles like this is a waste of mainspace. The little we know about Cheraldine could be included in a list of Dutch players and that would be sufficient.
 * Sistorian (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers Must say I'm surprised at the lack of coverage in a simple search, so at redirect for now. If something is found please let me know and I'll reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sending international sportspeople to AfD without goes to show what we have become as a project. This player participated in two World Cups and has 36 WODI appearances. "I can't find any sources myself so I'll send to AfD" is not the way these things should be handled - the cricket Wikiproject is very good at finding secondary sources when necessary and prompted to do so. Of course more work needs to be put into research about women's cricket in general - but this is the nature of the sport. Bobo. 00:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, Bobo. Thank you for your comments here and at the Meston case. I have been reading WP:ATD on the deletion policy page and I am beginning to think a different approach is needed. I still need to do a lot of research to get my head around the site's policies, guidelines and advice essays but I do have an idea.


 * Take a case like Cheraldine where the article is three short sentences of basic information lifted from a single statistical database site. As it is currently written, the article definitely fails WP:SIGCOV. As I said above, I cannot find anything else about Cheraldine online. She is an experienced international player, though, so there must be information in book, magazine and newspaper sources. Those, I fully accept, will be difficult and time-consuming to find.


 * Suppose I tag the article with the notability template banner and then add it to a list of cricket articles needing attention? I leave it alone for six months and then, if it is still three short statistical sentences, I do a straight redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers as suggested by Rugbyfan22? No need to involve AFD at all and, as you have requested, the cricket project sees the issue by monitoring the list and has six months to respond.


 * I became interested in AFD after reading the Lugnuts/Lambert cases at the Arbitration Committee. From that, I know there is going to be a reaction to the stubs created by Lugnuts although there are concerns about AFD being deluged. I would like to help with the initiative because I believe in quality over quantity and I have submitted six cases to AFD in the last few days to gain some experience of the process.


 * That is where I am coming from. I do not think short "stubs" like the Cheraldine article benefit the site's reputation; instead, they are an actual constraint. A reader wants useful information, more than so-and-so is a Dutch cricketer born when and where who has played in ODI matches for her country. Articles like that convince the readers that Wikipedia is a waste of space and they go away.


 * I do not know if my idea is practical because it might be out of process in some way. I need to fully understand what is in process. I will be happy to discuss further, of course. Thank you for your suggestions which most certainly provided me with food for thought. Best wishes.


 * Sistorian (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can't say much more than that what happens at AfD is much more than just a single situation, and for one reason or another, it has been causing issues within the cricket section for many years. Some situations resolve and some don't. Comme ci comme ca. There are more editors out there than just Lugnuts and JPL. There is still so much scope for article creation within our project, and, should you feel the need to help out, or can add more information, our project is always needing more fresh contributors. Unfortunately this and the Meston case do not work together as a single argument - international women's and domestic men's cricket are two much different animals. As I say, much more needs to be done in the world of women's international cricket, but that does not make it an invalid subject for contribution. Bobo. 08:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting by request Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers, per ATD. In the absence of significant coverage in secondary sources, that is required to demonstrate notability per BASIC/GNG, and nothing to hint that such coverage NEXISTs, we have a suitable redirect target for this BLP. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep per Beeeggs. I have added her record to the article. Note also that the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet. StAnselm (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers due to lack of WP:SIGCOV for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - the AfD is surely invalidated by the nominator being a confirmed sockpuppet... Bobo. 08:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect, this will give the cricket project a chance to find SIGCOV if it exists. JoelleJay (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2022 (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.