Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Greathead


 * 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 no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:14, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Ernest Greathead

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This fails WP:NSPORT which says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." and "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." Notability not established with substantive sources for continued bulk-creation of non-notable perma-substubs. Reywas92Talk 06:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  07:50, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  07:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  07:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Redirect to the relevant "list of..." article. Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations", which is now what is happening.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Played in seven first-class matches and must be presumed notable per SNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. The SNG WP:NCRIC is being disputed at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) just because there are countless articles like this one, for players who nominally meet the requirements outlined in it, but badly fail the general notability requirements. The "presumed notability" that NCRIC tries to establish seems to be too often based on next to nothing, and leads to the creation (and keeping) of articles on non-notable people. For Ernest Greathead, there is nothing at all to be found in the article or online. Presumably there is some routine coverage in contemporary reports of cricket matches, which wouldn't be enough to meet GNG: whether any actual acceptable indepth sources about him ever existed is not known, and until such sources are provided, there is nothing here to actually write an article instead of a database rehash. Fram (talk) 14:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * NCRIC rules that anyone who has played in a first-class match is presumed notable. This chap played in seven. Presumed notability applies unless the presumption can be rebutted because the topic is found to be (or have been) an exception to the rule (for example, he might have been a groundsman or spectator making up the numbers). You are saying that it is "not known" if in-depth sources exist(ed) and that such sources must be provided. That reveals a lack of understanding of presumed notability. Notability is presumed because the man played cricket at the highest domestic level and the onus is on you to provide evidence that he was not in fact notable so that the presumption can be rebutted. Until such evidence is forthcoming, the article must be retained (unless the cricket project wish to redirect it to their list) although I'd be happy for it to be tagged with a request for additional content and sources. No Great Shaker (talk) 05:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * BS, the WP:BURDEN is not on a delete-voter to prove a negative. Until such evidence that the person is notable, the article shall not exist. You don't get to make thousands of crap articles and say na-na-na-na-na my mass-production, zero-BEFORE actions are immune unless you do all the work to impossibly prove lack of sources. Moreover do you don't get to pick and choose what parts of WP:NSPORT to follow and which not to is preposterous. This page says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline" so if it doesn't meet the GNG, it doesn't get a standalone article! Nor do you get to say "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" doesn't count either. Your position is completely imaginary and your shiting the burden of providing significant coverage is unjustifiable. Reywas92Talk 06:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * You can't prove a negative of course. But it has become clear to most people that too many of these "highest domestic level" players don't have the necessary notability to pass the WP:GNG, and that the presumed notability from NCRIC turns out to be way too optimistic. When a presumption is likely to be wrong, one shouldn't cling to it for dear life. Fram (talk) 08:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , thank you for replying in English without a rendition of Hey Jude and, most importantly, without a personal attack against and others in the cricket project. Notability is presumed by the SNG and if the article meets the SNG criteria it is notable unless proved otherwise as an exception (presumption rebutted). If it doesn't meet the SNG, then it's AFD unless it somehow satisfies GNG in other ways. I'm going to propose an extension to my wording with Masem's suggestion incorporated. Leave that with me. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm done with you. Fram (talk) 09:29, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. This has been established as a reasonable compromise over a period of time and articles like this where there is clearly some notability but not enough evidence of clear sourcing to maintain a stand alone article. I'm not convinced that, given the usual outcome, that it's a good idea to be sending this sort of article to AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect; fails all meaningful notability guidelines, including GNG and NSPORT. Fails SPORTCRIT by virtue of only being sourced to wide-scoped databases. Superficially passes NCRIC, which consensus has determined as failing it's primary purpose per NSPORT, 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. Ultimately per NCRIC (as bound by NSPORT) subjects must be assessed against GNG. This fails. A redirect may be appropriate. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:18, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete fails any reasonable interpretation of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:39, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Missvain (talk) 03:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. I don't think this is a terribly distinguished cricket career and Eastern Province at the time when Greathead played was one of the weaker South African first-class sides. But he played in four out of five Currie Cup matches in his first season and in three out of six in his second, playing as a wicketkeeper. I'd be surprised if there wasn't coverage of him in South African newspapers at the time, and seven first-class matches seems well above thresholds for a presumption of notability being discussed elsewhere, and being applied in other sports. Johnlp (talk) 00:28, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - well above the threshold of WP:NCRIC.  Onel 5969  TT me 03:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm   (talk)  14:04, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is totally ridiculous and something that I wouldn't expect any Wikipedia editor with common sense to do. He has 7 first-class match records. Keep the article. Lettlerhello • contribs 14:46, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete A WP:BEFORE search turns up nothing notable enough to pass Wikipedia's chief notability requirement (WP:N) that all other guidelines should adhere to. Until those requirements are altered it is what it is no matter what anyone likes, myself included. I am not saying the article should never have been created. Notability can be presumed because it meets the criteria of a SNG, in this case WP:CRIN. It even says that in the notability guideline. The SNG states that the criteria does not mean an article should be kept but simply to be used as a "rule of thumb" for presumed notability. But when the subject is rebutted and a search is conducted and the results formed by a consensus is that the subject does not pass the notability guideline then the article does not belong. Thus this AfD. The results will be what they are. No need for attacking each other or hate filled responses. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 16:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly there is no coverage and as per above comments, fails WP:GNG. Störm   (talk)  16:34, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers - Doing a few searches yields no reliable sources online, leading me to believe this doesn't warrant a stand-alone article. So, unless someone else provides some newspapers that can document other things about his life, it's best to redirect his name to that list. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont</b>)</b> 18:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete/Redirect- I think ARoseWolf puts it well. Meeting an SNG is fine for presuming sources might exist, up until the point someone actually goes looking for them and comes up empty handed. Meeting an SNG is not a permanent exemption from sourcing requirements. And since WP:NCRIC is demonstrably very bad at predicting which articles end up meeting our inclusion requirements it's probably wise to give it very little weight. This article has now been the subject of several source searches by people in this AfD (I add myself to the list), and so I don't think it's suitable. <b style="color: Maroon;">Reyk</b> <b style="color: Blue;">YO!</b> 08:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. If five people do the same basic search for sources, then it's no wonder if they come up with the same result. Sources are likely to be among South African newspapers contemporary to the time he was playing: I don't have access to them (there does not seem to be a digitised national repository of them). But seven first-class matches gives a reasonable presumption that they would exist. Johnlp (talk) 11:47, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't like to say a reasonable presumption without knowing more about how individual cricketers are dealt with by the sources we might be able to get access to. If he were Australian I might be willing to accept the likelihood based on other articles; if he were English I'd be a lot less certain. I think I asked if anyone knew anything about South African newspaper sources in another AfD. Does anyone know how SA newspapers covered cricket? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seven FC appearances satisfies WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 22:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.