Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cooper (cricketer)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 13:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

George Cooper (cricketer)

 * – ( 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. Reywas92Talk 06:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per the expansion work post-nom. Worst case is to 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 09:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been expanded this morning with multiple sources so no need to redirect, although the player should be included in the Queensland list anyway. Cooper played in two first-class matches and is rightly presumed notable. Lugnuts is right to assert that AfD is being flooded with indiscriminate or excessive nominations by deletionists who do not understand the concept of presumed notability. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:04, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Please keep your comments relevant to this discussion. Ad hominem attacks on other contributors are not acceptable. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ad hominem relates to a particular person, which is its literal meaning, not a group or movement. It is evident in the NCRIC forum that some of the deletionists do not understand the concept or application of presumed notability. I've removed the other bit, however, as that is less evident. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:17, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I appreciate your (grudging) retraction of the claim that we are here because of people who "hate cricket", but please strikeout rather than refactor comments (especially those that have been responded to). Secondly, stop using the term "deletionist" in a derogatory manner. Finally, AFD is where the presumption of notability is tested, and substantial sources should be sought to demonstrate that presumption was valid; as such, asserting that the subject played in matches so is "rightly presumed notable" is not an argument that gets us anywhere. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:53, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep - I think there's just about enough here for meet the GNG. It's not perfect, but given that playing at Sheffield Shield level is reasonably notable in itself, I'm happy to keep this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per No Great Shaker and Blue Square Thing. Enough sources to pass GNG. Deus et lex (talk) 22:58, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or redirect to List of Queensland first-class cricketers. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for domestic cricketers and by consensus is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met. The sources are insufficient to establish notability but it is reasonable to expect others exist. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG after expansion. Störm   (talk)  21:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:GNG, also, this spate of AfD's regarding cricket players while there is an ongoing discussion seems a bit premature. Perhaps they should have waited until that discussion is concluded.  Onel 5969  TT me 01:39, 30 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.