Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ash


 * 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. John254 01:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

David Ash

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I don't think an undistinguished county-level cricketer who played three matches in 1965 qualifies as notable. Katharineamy 22:20, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Inappropriate AfD; first-class cricketers are always WP:N per very long-standing policy, regardless of whether nom thinks they're "undistinguished". —  iride scent   (talk to me!)  23:35, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * KEEP As the original writer of this article, I was under the impression that all first class cricketers are notable. This has been established time and again in fact, please check the notability guidelines before nominating someone like this Katharineamy.  The wikipedia consensus is that any player who's played their sport in a fully professional league is notable and English county cricket obviously qualifies as the highest level of the game.  You might not think him notable but wikipedia does. Nick mallory 01:24, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, inherently notable as a first class cricketer. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 01:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, playing First-class cricket isn't something anyone can do - it requires a high level of talent to participate at all. Notability asserted as such and is enough in my (and WP:BIO's) book, with First-class cricket being a professional level of the sport. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 02:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Notable. Per the above comments. 69.116.62.33 03:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Shoester 05:58, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per above and WP:BIO which states that Atheltes who are "Competitors who have played in a fully professional league, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming or tennis" are notable, making this individual clearly notable. Andrew nixon 06:19, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - as per the comments above, he is notable by Wikipedia's criteria. JH (talk page) 09:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep precedence dictates that first-class cricketers are notable, and in any case, the guidelines for improving potential notablity issues are as follows, none of which were done before adding the prod template:
 * Improve it yourself
 * Ask the article's creator for advice. The template nn-warn is one way to do this.
 * Put the notability or bio-notability tag on the article to notify other editors.
 * –MDCollins (talk) 10:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know a number of people who've played first class cricket - you could hardly say they were professionals as such, just given a few quid expenses for playing in a couple of games, and all will have had other jobs. In the same way, should all semi-professional footballers be listed? Or cricketers at clubs around the country where every team in the league has a 'pro'?  I'm not a wiki-guru, but I do know that if you were to list every cricketer who has played at least one first class game you'd have loads more entires.  Under the rules, it's a Keep, but I think the rules are slightly flawed.--Gavinio 11:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is they played First Class Cricket - e.g. in a fully professional league. It doesn't matter that they didn't make a career out of it.  Clear rules allow people to do productive things on wikipedia instead of endlessly arguing about whether so and so qualifies for such and such reason.  Would you want a cut off point?  Five games?  Ten games?  Why that many exactly?  What if they scored a hundred on debut and didn't play again?  The rules are clear, if you play first class cricket you're in. We should have an article for every first class cricketer, wikipedia is not paper and nobody's asking you to write them.  There are plenty of interested people who will.  Nick mallory 03:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep, the WP:SNOWBALL effect now applies. Burntsauce 18:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 'Snowball keep'. Thin Arthur 08:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Snowball keep I concur. Meets the objective criteria of having played in a fully professional league. --Malcolmxl5 19:47, 26 August 2007 (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.