Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gerard Rotherham


 * 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The result of the debate was Speedy keep - nomination withdrawn -- Ian &equiv; talk 02:23, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Gerard Rotherham
non-notable biography of cricket player. Googling subject brings virtually no mention. Batman2005 21:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I created this article three minutes before it was tagged for deletion. It is one of WikiProject Cricket's priority tasks to create biographies on all Wisden Cricketers of the Year, which is itself a featured list. Gerard Rotherham may not be the most distinguished of the cricketers that Wisden has selected, but he's there, and the series would be incomplete without him. Johnlp 22:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete non-notable, even with "Wisden Cricketers of the Year." 4.224.192.204 22:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * First edit of this IP editor.


 * Keep. First class cricketer with a decent career. Easily passes the Criteria guideline for article inclusion for WP:Cricket. Tintin (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep. I'm at an utter loss as to how anyone can say that a Wisden Cricketer of the Year is non-notable. It's like saying a physicist is non-notable despite winning the Nobel Prize. -dmmaus 22:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Keep per Tintin. Tango 23:19, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Tintin Jcuk 22:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Tintin; also passes basic WP:BIO test for notability as part of the enduring historical record in cricket. --Muchness 23:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. If the little yellow bible says he's a good player, that's enough notability for me. Grutness...wha?  00:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Former first-class cricketer in two countries and former Wisden Cricketer of the Year albeit in unusual circumstances. Capitalistroadster 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC) "
 * Keep, nice refutation of the google test. Kappa
 * Keep per WP:Cricket Criteria guideline for article inclusion. Oh, and he's a Wisden Cricketer of the Year. -- Ian &equiv; talk 13:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:Cricket Criteria guideline for article inclusion. Oh, and he's a Wisden Cricketer of the Year. -- Ian &equiv; talk 13:23, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep as per Tintin, meets WP:BIO criteria for inclusion. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 19:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Orginial requester appears to be a troll; no reason to delete as article provides plenty evidence of noteability. Damicatz 19:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep Meets criteria, passed google test in a flash. Don't see any reason for deletion. wisden cricketer of the year. Lesliestng 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as with all others from WP:CRIC. I think the google test will tell you that some individual gold medallists from past Olympics are not notable, so it doesn't work for historical people. Blnguyen 01:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I AM NOT A TROLL I unfortunately mistyped this cricketers name when I googled it and not suprisingly found no mention of him. I then redid it after seeing so many people saying how notable he was and I concede my mistake. There is however, no need to call me a troll. I just tire of coming to wikipedia and seeing articles for minorly important people who offer great claims of notability. This article is clearly not one of those, but i'm sure you all understand my frustration with people who create articles about somebody just because they played semi-pro baseball or ran in a state election, etc. Batman2005 21:35, 12 February 2006 (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.