Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Cradock-Watson


 * 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 on whether this individual passes WP's notability guidelines. I'd suggest giving a bit more time for the article to be developed before re-evaluating.  —&#8288;Scotty Wong &#8288;— 23:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Geoffrey Cradock-Watson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Turning directories and databases into prose doesn't make someone notable. This directory is the main source, the remainder is a cricket database and very short, official mentions in the London Gazette (a primary source basically, and nothing in depth). No other or better sources seem to be available for the subject. Fails WP:GNG. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. First-class cricketer who meets WP:NCRIC. Wider WP:GNG established by his war-time efforts, which led to the United States decorating him with the Legion of Merit – a rare award to be bestowed to a foreigner. There are no rules in Wikipedia which state you can't turn a directory into prose, or indeed databases for that matter. They are reliable sources, as are those found in the London Gazette, a cornerstone of many military history articles on this site. StickyWicket (talk) 12:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Meeting NCRIC in itself is a worthless achievement, as NCRIC gives no indication of actually being a notable cricketer or not (as seen here, where the only source who gives some more information, the aeroplane directory, doesn't even mention his cricketing, and all we have about his cricket are databases). The Legion of Merit was given out quite liberally during and shortly after the war, and that one issue of the London Gazette alone lists 20+ British people getting the same rank that day, and 15 or so getting a higher rank. And obviously that wasn't the only time that award was bestowed upon British military personnel. And you are arguing a strawman: I didn't argue that the London Gazette isn't a reliable source, I said that it is a primary source and doesn't count for notability: it simply lists official dispatches and announcements, it is not the work of journalists and doesn't provide commentary, research, insights, background, ... Fram (talk) 13:28, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't meet the broader definition of NCRIC as the matches he played in aren't on the list of competitions we consider to be at the highest domestic level. I'm simply considering GNG in this case and, in comparison with a number of other sports biography articles, find that it far exceeds the level of sourcing that seems to be acceptable at, for example, NBASE related articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:08, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's basically an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS reasoning. There are many sports articles with sourcing and notability issues: but keeping these articles because others also have similar issues is not the solution of course. The question is whether he meets WP:GNG requirements of sourcing, not whether we have even worse articles. Fram (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say it's more about precedent, which is something I refer to regularly at AfD (for example, here back in 2019. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't really see how a general comment about articles in another sport is a precedent for this AfD though. Fram (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, OK - I was sort of referring to (obliquely clearly) two recent Baseball AfD: Joe Fagin and John Dwyer, although the later was formally closed as no consensus. I'd also stack up the arguments and relative quality of Jeff Atkins, a current AfD, and maybe Jamie Fitzgerald, also ongoing. Neither seem to have done anything more notable than the chap here - in fact, he seems much more notable than either. Apologies for being oblique. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please. Wait more than an hour before sending something to AfD. Or request more to be added. AfD doesn't work while an article is still in development. It's thanks to pressure from within the project that AA is only now creating articles for individuals who have more to be written about. I worked for long enough on New Page Patrol to see which articles had nowhere to go and which needed tagging.(And how few people worked on New Page Patrol, but that's another matter!) Bobo. 12:46, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - It's quite encouraging these days that posting a message on WT:CRIC simply saying, "is there more to be written?" will get eyes upon an article, especially for an individual from an English-speaking country. Bobo. 13:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't have access to the Liverpool Echo article or the second source, can someone briefly state the contents of both in relation to Cradock-Watson, before I offer my views. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:39, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Liverpool Echo contains just 3 sentences: (1) name, rank, youngest son, address in Tunbridge Wells, awarded OBE; (2) father was headmaster at Merchant Taylors where he went to school, went to Oxford Uni; (3) school cricket captain, "really good wicketkeeper", distinguished in athletics at Oxford gaining half-blue. There is a very similar article in the Kent & Sussex Courier, which adds: (1) identical to Liverpool Echo 1; (2) employment with Burma-Shell Oil in India from which was released to join the RAF; (3) served in the Middle East attached to the Eighth Army; (4 & 5) much condensed version of Liverpool Echo 2 & 3. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep not just for his cricket career, albeit breif, but mainly for his OBE, per WP:ANYBIO ("The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times").  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:48, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Obviously there is some coverage on the player, and he played 6 FC matches, but I'm not sure there's enough for a GNG pass. Wjemather has given me a synopsis of the sourcing I can't read, and it seems to show some coverage that could be considered GNG, but potentially not enough for a GNG pass. The article though is a new one, so perhaps more can be found in a more indepth search over time, so I'm currently down as a weak delete, and a very weak one at that. Perhaps this could be revisited in 6 months to see if more can be found in that time, given his career was in a period before the internet and when archiving was limited. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * This is why first course of action should never be "send to AfD". First course of action should always be "approach to see if anything more can be done". And WP:CRIC is very good at doing that, in the main. When an article gets sent to AfD only an hour after it is created, (not including speedy deletions of nonsense, or clearly non-notable individuals), it is unclear how much information there is to be found, and when an article is going through an AfD process while this is happening, it renders the AfD meaningless. (And why WP:G4 exists and its application needs to be closely followed. Ahh, years of vandal patrol coming good!) Bobo. 18:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternatively, experienced editors shouldn't be creating articles without having good indepth sources for the subject, not just creating them in the hope that eventually such sources will be found. People should write actual articles, not one-line repetitiveness based on a stats database and without regards of whether that line does the person justice in any way (sometimes it looks as if some cricket editors think that a person playing some games in their youth just has to be the most notable thing anyone can have done, even though in quite a few cases it turns out that someone is notable for completely different stuff and the cricket is just a footnote). Fram (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I write one-line repetitive articles do I? And there was me thinking you'd trolled my edit history in some detail. I think you'll find my contributions to the cricket project are far from "one–line repetitiveness". And yes, cricketers are often notable for other things, with their cricket being a footnote, much like this guy, or this guy, or even this guy, which I'm sure you will agree are fine examples of "one–line repetitiveness"! StickyWicket (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Moral high ground AA. The point of "one-line repetitive articles" is to be built on by other contributors should they so wish. If they can't do so, then we end up with a situation like this where people send to AfD because they assume there's nothing more to add. Project history proves that there is plenty we are able to add and that we are willing to do so. Bobo. 23:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, it wasn't an instance of "further sources to be found", as the sources were added by AA later. He stated in his opening edit summary that there was more to come (AA, you might want to have made that more obvious). And in any case, "send to AfD" and "please can you find further sources" are two completely different courses of action and should be two separate discussions. It is not made obvious that discussion two happened first, and it probably should have. Bobo. 18:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Considering the "notability" of many cricket players with articles, the "cooperation" I have seen in many other discussions from some cricket regulars, the lack of good sources even after expansion (and the total lack of better sources a WP:BEFORE revealed), no, I see no reason to use a different approach for cricket articles than for other articles I encounter at NPP. I notice in this very discussion that enough cricket editors still have the mistaken belief that NCRIC is a good indicator of notability, or still don't seem to know what indepth secondary sources look like. I have little interest in first trying to have a discussion on the cricket project talk pages, to then have the same discussion at AfD anyway in many cases. Fram (talk) 19:07, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The very fact you've put the word "co-operation" in inverted commas is a sad and ironic reflection on why at least half-a-dozen serial content creators have scarpered... Such is life. Sigh. Bobo. 19:17, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And the rest Bobo... StickyWicket (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Forgive me for repeating myself but for all our faults as a project, I consider our ability to find further sources one of our best qualities. Bobo. 19:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. The Cricket Project has been very accommodating to amending WP:NCRIC, this is evidenced by the number of redirects to cricket list articles; in the past this would not have happened. When we find additional sources and bring these together, we build an article. In short we are building an encyclopedia; and that's the Cricket Project's aim, to broaden knowledge about the sport from it's earliest days to the present, creating the most in-depth coverage of cricket in the world. It will take time, Rome wasn't built in a day. And to be honest, I see little difference between this article and the cricket stubs you often deride, afterall, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. StickyWicket (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom: the article does not provide any sources which provide significant coverage of this person. The current sources verify the basic facts of his life, but do not provide any indication that he meets WP:BIO given that they are almost all database entries of various sorts. Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Deletewe lack actual in depth coverage as required by GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Not denying that, but the article can certainly be expanded and the article can add some additional sources such as these - 1 2 3. --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk • contribs)


 * First source you give, section "Biography", full text: "Do you have more information about this person? Inform us!" That about sums it up... The second source is a government list of names, so not indepth or independent (and I can't even find him in there, but I may have missed it), and the third source lists one Craddock and no Cradocks, so again no idea how it is supposed to help here. All in all, none of the three sources establish any notability, and two of the three don't seem to even mention him. Fram (talk) 08:23, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm curious to know what you think could be added from these sources. Like Fram, all I am seeing from your links is a largely empty database listing (that simply references the London Gazette announcements) and two books in which he is not mentioned at all. If it wasn't for the first link, I'd be convinced you had accidentally posted to the wrong AFD. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point, looking again, I can hardly see any sources relating to the subject. However, looking at his FC career, it is enough for a WP:CRIC pass and a WP:N pass too. And, as clearly said by Bobo earlier, digging up sources is one of WP:NCRIC "finest" qualities. Why not for this subject too? Certainly some credible sources can be dug up to this subject. --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Then why did you add those sources here in the first place? It is very strange behaviour to add two sources which don't even mention the subject to support your "keep", then to admit that "I can hardly see any sources relating to the subject", but to state that they pass WP:N anyway. Your reply to Wjemather below is equally baffling. It reads as if you want to keep it, sources be damned, and that at first you tried it by adding sources in the hope that no one would check them, and now that you have been found out, you just make empty claims in the hope that whoever closes this will do a votecount and not look at the actual reasoning (or lack thereof) behind it. Fram (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I was merely suggesting that such sources could be found. For example, this, this, or even this. You will find that these sources do indeed source Cradock. --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Does seem to pass WP:CRIC. Barely passes WP:N with Watson's position as wing commander (WC) during World War II. Passes WP:GNG as well on that note --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk • contribs) 23:59, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Just above, you agreed with JPL's comment that we "lack actual in depth coverage as required by GNG"; here you state "passes GNG". What has changed? wjematherplease leave a message... 11:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, however, it does indeed passes WP:GNG, in my opinion. Above, I wasn't denying to the point that the current sources in the article don't give any info or indication to the extent in which it necessarily passes WP:BIO. I wasn't "not denying" that it doesn't pass WP:GNG. --WellThisIsTheReaper (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your statements are contradictory, and in some respects, incoherent. Sources (containing significant coverage) are needed to pass GNG, but you "can hardly see any sources" and claim this "passes GNG". I give up. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm convinced that there's enough coverage just about and that there's enough notability outside of cricket that once we add the fc career in that we can meet a reasonable standard of notability here. It's not overwhelming, but there's enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:00, 17 February 2022 (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.