Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collan Nicholas


 * 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. Geschichte (talk) 08:56, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Collan Nicholas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No evidence of subject receiving significant coverage in reliable sources; fails WP:GNG. NCRIC falls under WP:NSPORTS, which says "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." It also says "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]" as well as "Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases."

This has zero significant sources; it cites only a database source of the single game played, which is specifically excluded by WP:SPORTCRIT from being able to establish notability. Hence there is not basis for the bulk-creation of this article. A possible redirect target is List of Border representative cricketers. Reywas92Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92Talk 04:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 05:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Engr.  Smitty   Werben 05:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NSPORT/WP:NCRIC. Right at the top of WP:NSPORT (before WP:SPORTCRIT) it states (in bold) - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". At worst, redirect to the list.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Immediately after that it says "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Well guess what? For this person, they don't. So he's not notable. It also says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline" so any apparent contradictions show the idiocy of this page, and we should default to the basic expection of significant coverage beyond a database entry, not your mass-production of perma-substubs. Reywas92Talk 08:44, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but you're wrong here, as the article meets the notability requirements. And please don't make attacks against me. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking the SNG page. But you're wrong, because even with "or the sport specific criteria set forth below", it doesn't meet the SNG because the SNG explicity excludes the use of only databases for notability. Reywas92Talk 17:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete. NCRIC is disputed at the moment because it is way too broad and includes too many people who don't meet WP:GNG by a mile. One way to show that a SNG is not valid is establishing consensus at AfDs that people who meet the SNG (NCRIC in this case) should be deleted or redirected anyway. An SNG is not intended to be a free pass for people not meeting the GNG, but a way to rapidly check if people are very likely to meet the GNG. Fram (talk) 09:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers per my reasoning at Articles_for_deletion/Arthur Norton. In short, this flood of nonnotable people is unsustainable and there are better ways to cover this information. Reyk YO! 11:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to List of Border representative cricketers; fails all meaningful notability criteria (GNG, NBIO, etc.) – by consensus, NCRIC is too permissive and should not be used as a reliable indicator of notability; even more so meeting it so minimally. Current sourcing fails SPORTBASIC and seems highly unlikely any significant coverage exists to establish notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. This is probably best in the circumstances - we only have one match of any kind recorded for him and a redirect preserves the base of the article should we find more in the future. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:08, 16 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to List of Border representative cricketers. The article simply tells us that Nicholas played one game of South African cricket in either 1954 or 1955 (not even sure about the year). This same information can be conveyed (and more effectively) in the redirect list. This is one of ~ 3,000 similar cricket sub-stubs mass-produced this year alone by Lugnuts. See User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2020. While such sub-stubs might be acceptable when an SNG is tailored to accurately predict GNG compliance, this SNG fails to do so and would leave us with tens of thousands of sub-stubs than can never be improved to become meaningful encyclopedia articles. Cbl62 (talk) 14:19, 18 December 2020 (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.