Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin Hemsley


 * 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. Academic Challenger (talk) 08:31, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

Colin Hemsley

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails core content policy WP:V and therefore it may be original research and so fail WP:OR too. Article is a BLP so verification is essential. Notice served September 2017 requiring citations has not been acknowledged. There is a subscription site given as an external link but that is not a source. Regards, Waj (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Many similar cricket biographies where the subject made a single top-level appearance have been nominated for deletion on the grounds of dubious notability. That is subjective and notability is only a guideline. This case focuses on verification which is a core content policy and not so easy to argue against unless adequate sourcing can be provided. It is believed that large numbers of cricket biographies are unsourced so this one is the tip of an iceberg. Regards, Waj (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - sorry, but this is very different to the articles recently debated - this is, for a start, an English cricketer about whom I am certain there is enough material to make an article if we are prepared to research further. As it is, he has made a List A appearance and is therefore notable. This is precisely why we don't make our guidelines to read 2, 3, 5, or 500 List A appearances. We've had over ten years to change these guidelines to read this way and we still haven't done so. Sending articles like this to AfD straight away is not the answer - let's at least send them for possible cleanup and/or expansion first. Bobo. 21:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It has not been sent to AfD immediately because notice was served in September that citations are required. This has not been done and it fails WP:V (a core policy) and WP:BLP (a fundamental policy). Notability is not an issue at this time. It is dependent on verification and can be assessed after verification has been provided. Regards, Waj (talk) 22:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 01:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep - This is unfair to the guidelines of our WikiProject Cricket as these notable cricketers are either nominated for PROD or AfD discussion. Colin Hemsley is much more notable than other Sri Lankan and Indian cricketers which were nominated for AfD. But the nominator has nominated this for an AfD without quoting the notability issues. Then what's the issue with the article? Abishe (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Abishe. Sorry, but that is unbelievable. Until action was taken by User:Jevansen, and not by the article's author as should have been the case, the article had NO CITATIONS AT ALL and was therefore in breach of WP:V, one of the core content policies. Verification is all the more important because Mr Hemsley is alive and so the article was also failing to comply with WP:BLP, another key (though not core) policy. Notability was not the issue. Regards, Waj (talk) 06:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for indirectly naming me... sure, the article had no citations, but it had external links which I always used because at the time, that was the template I was working towards. No references? Turn the external links into references. Exactly the same thing. Job's a good 'un. Just like with others, I find it disgusting that it's taken nine years for someone to decide they have an issue with an article and, instead of bringing it up with the article's creator or those who may be interested in fixing it, sending it straight to AfD. If the main complaint is, "change external links to references", this is a job which can be done quietly and successfully, not having to do it this way. Bobo. 08:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Bobo192, I cannot access that site and I could not know if the link is a valid citation. Obviously, Jevansen does have access and has checked it. There is nothing "disgusting" about raising a BLP issue and it has not taken me nine years. Regards, Waj (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Memo to closing administrator. I raised the nomination because the article at the time had no citations at all. In my opinion, this meant that it did not comply with either WP:V or WP:BLP. In secondary terms, WP:V failure creates the risk of non-compliance with WP:OR and, possibly WP:NPOV also. As such, the article must be deemed unacceptable as it failed the core content policies. I have been accused by the article's author of "sending articles like this to AfD straightaway" (instead of taking alternative actions) but I contend that a "citations required" notice was served on the article three months ago and was not even acknowledged. Therefore, AfD is logically the next step.
 * Next, I am accused by another cricket project editor of being "unfair" and failing to "quote the notability issues". There were no notability issues because there was no verification. There might be a notability issue now because "Cricket Archive" is controversial (see the other cricket-related AfD discussions) but I am not pursuing that.
 * Would you please let me know if I have acted incorrectly? For example, have I gone outside due process or missed any key steps? If not, then can you please carefully explain to each of User:Bobo192 and User:Abishe – (a) the importance of WP:V and WP:BLP; (b) the difference between verification and notability; (c) the difference between citations and external links; (d) anything else you can think of.
 * I have only been a member for a few days and I feel weary. I think I should take some time out and perhaps forget all about membership. I used to enjoy using this site before I became a member. Regards, Waj (talk) 06:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I like the fact that you think, after 13 years of membership, I need to be "carefully explained" anything. The only thing which needs to be "carefully explained" is why our project is being destroyed. Bobo. 17:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I will address this more at AN where this was brought up, however I need to point out here that an article with no citations in it does not "fail WP:V". Citations do not have to be included in an article to pass WP:V, they only must exist. BLP is the only policy that requires citations to be present in an article. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The Bushranger. I apologise for not mentioning the challenge earlier in the nomination so my opening sentence is unclear. I believe the article violated WP:V because citations were not provided after a challenge was made. As you say, it certainly violated BLP. Regards, Waj (talk) 11:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * - you do seem to know alot about WP:V, WP:BLP, WP:OR, AfD, etc, for a user who has been here four days. Have you edited before, and if so, under which account(s)?  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I also have such reservations as they never looked WP:NEWBIE. Don't know they are WP:SOCK or not. Störm   (talk)  14:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep, def. going down the WP:SOCK route, per WP:DUCK. 10 edits in and they're dropping in to random AfDs. And this personal attack directed at too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:37, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Don't know who is missing in our AfDs but surely he has participated previously in cricket-related AfDs or is concurring. Störm   (talk)  14:47, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't blame Lugnuts and Störm for casting suspicion. The user's "signature test" on their sandbox, starting threads at WT:N and WP:AN, long rants about WP:V, frequently "quitting" the site (in four days!) etc, all look very familiar to the average WP:CRIC member. Dee  03  14:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * They have 100pc 'edits with summary' which is comparable with Bobo192's 98pc. Störm   (talk)  15:17, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We're getting off-topic a teensy bit but are you referring to 98 percent of the history of the project? I've had "Make sure I always add an edit summary" clicked on for heaven knows how long. But this isn't really relevant to the current conversation. I'm just demoralized at the fact that our project is being destroyed. Bobo. 17:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sigh! This again? I have used the site for several years but not as a member. I am seriously beginning to regret I ever decided to try membership out. The site is full of suspicion, politics and recriminations. As for my ability to understand the policies and spot irregularities in their wordings, I am by trade a legal practitioner, so it comes easy to me. Also, I have asked a lot of questions – at the help desk, for example, and on policy talk pages.
 * In fact, spur of the moment, why bother? Regards, Waj (talk) 14:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep The original issues of failing WP:V/WP:OR are not valid deletion requirements in themselves, and have both been addressed via sourcing.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Concerns about notability have been addressed and WP:NCRIC has been satisfied by added citations. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as meeting WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - nom started this AfD but he himself is no more on WP. Störm   (talk)  07:22, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC. Johnlp (talk) 00:14, 26 December 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.