Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Gough


 * 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 delete. The key point is the total lack of significant coverage for either player. The only sources were directory entries or routine selection mentions and no in-depth coverage has been brought forward by any of the commentators. This means that both players fail WP:GNG. Out of all the comments, only one, a 'delete' !voter, has addressed this. The debate has hinged around compliance with WP:NCRIC. The balance of views is that criteria 4 is critical and that that has not been met. Most of the 'keep' !votes, though pointing up flaws in the project guidelines, did not effectively address them.

Turning now to the FAQs at the top of the Notability (sports) page, Q1 and Q2 are particularly relevant. Looking at A1 and A2, with A2 saying "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline. " it is clear that meeting WP:NCRIC alone is not sufficient without at least the potential to meet WP:GNG. In this instance, I am not seeing a consensus that even WP:NCRIC is met and with the article clearly failing WP:GNG the close must be to 'delete'.

I am happy to userfy these articles if an editor considers that they can be expanded with suitable sources. Just Chilling (talk) 22:20, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Christina Gough

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reason:

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Whilst they have made an international debut for an Associate team, they fail point #4 of WP:NCRIC as they have not played in a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only) fixture.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:07, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:22, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Rightly or wrongly, the ICC has granted full international status to these matches. StAnselm (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * - apologies, my nomination should have included the text "after 1 July 2018... " before the "a World T20 (men or women), Global Qualifier (men or women) or Regional Final (men only)" part. This was discussed at the Cricket Project to tighten the notability guidance and not to allow all these players to become automatically notable playing for an Associate side. These players have not played in a World T20, etc.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:36, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
 * What am I missing in regards to Christina Gough? She is currently captaining Germany in the 2019 ICC Women's Qualifier Europe, you just recently added players who participated in the equivalent mens tournament on Guernsey.--Moedk (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi. The Guernsey matches were part of the European Regional Final. The women's regional qualifiers feed into the main 2019 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier tournament. So if/when they play in the latter, then they meet the notability requirement.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. The guidelines surrounding both men's and women's T20I cricketers from associate nations are pretty clear. StickyWicket (talk) 15:39, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - the status of the matches she's played in don't concern me as much as the lack of in depth secondary sources - I can find odd mentions, but that's it. If there are lots of German language sources then I might be interested, but until then this strikes me as not meeting notability guidelines. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep - she has represented her country at the highest level and therefore enough to prove notability. On one side, we say any one who played in single domestic cricket match as notable and then we are arguing for her notability. Women's cricket and German-language sources are hard to find. Störm   (talk)  00:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Lots of Associate cricketers have now "represented (their) country at the highest level" since the ICC changed the rules on awarding full T20I status to all of its members. Per WP:NCRIC #4, Associate Players need to have played in one of the tournaments listed after 1 July 2018 to now meet WP:NCIC, and neither of these two individuals currently meet that requirement. Hope that helps.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter what WP:NCRIC #4 says, the subject passes NCRIC #1: "Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level." StAnselm (talk) 09:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, and for Associate players, they need to meet #4 after 1 July 2018.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I think it should be discussed again as they were made on ad hoc basis. As they have represented their country so, it should enough to meet notability. Every sport follows this rule. Störm   (talk)  10:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * The original discussion was to tighten the notability guidelines, to avoid a flood of non-notable biographies for all Associate players after the 1 July 2018 change. For example, should all the red-links for this men's and this women's tournament have an article, simply because they played for their national side? So it was agreed at the Cricket Project only to create them if/when any of those cricketers involved played in a World T20, etc.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:59, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope we implement similar measures to restrict domestic cricket players biographies, especially List A and Twenty20, who get freebie articles because they have official status. I voted keep based on principle which we are following from a long period of time. Störm   (talk)  15:46, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Question - has anyone been able to find enough in-depth secondary sources to meet any standard notability criteria? My feeling is that at this level that's far more important than what matches someone has played. There was a fairly recent AfD for someone who had played for somewhere like Singapore way before matches like this were official but more whom there were such sources eventually. That's far more likely, in my view, to be a long-term viable article than someone about whom we only have statistics about. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep international athlete MaskedSinger (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * But fails the notability requirement for someone playing in an Associate cricket team.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't understand the exclusion in WP:NCRICK #4 of women's Regional Finals. If it was a men's Regional Final of a Twenty20 International match, she would be presumed notable. Despite the fact that Women's Twenty20 International says "In April 2018, the ICC granted full Women's Twenty20 International (WT20I) status to all its members. Therefore, all Twenty20 matches played between two international sides after 1 July 2018 will be a full WT20I", WP:NCRICK has somehow decided that some women's Twenty20 matches played between two international sides do not meet Wikipedia standards??? RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:19, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep With all due respect NCRICK needs to go back to the drawing board if top international players are falling foul of their arbitrary inclusion criteria. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 07:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that I would consider the German women's team full of "top international players" - with all due respect to them. Once you get to this level of "international" cricket it's amateur players at work. Which is an interesting question to deal with in itself - iirc WP:NSPORTS specifically mentions that it deals primarily with professionals doesn't it? I don't think Gough is classed in anyway as a professional or plays in anything that could be remotely termed a professional league. There is a strong argument that any player taking part in the Women's Cricket Super League, for example, would be much more likely to be considered notable in comparison to her. Not that I would question that WP:CRIN needs to be totally re-written - there are a number of areas where it is clearly, in my view, not fit for purpose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Question - is there any way to save as a draft so that if Germany qualify for the Qualifiers, this can be quickly returned? Red Fiona (talk) 23:40, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm happy for the article to be moved to draft-space, however it's likely to be another two years before a qualification tournament takes place with Germany playing in it to get a chance to progress.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Ah, that I didn't know. I was wondering if there was a solution that would solve the not-notable-yet problem without requiring the article to be re-written.  Red Fiona (talk) 19:15, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem. If she does become notable in the future, the article can always be brought back via WP:REFUND, or created from scratch.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:17, 14 July 2019 (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.