Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Anderson


 * 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 redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Clear consensus not to have a standalone. ATD close. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Hayden Anderson

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lacks notability. Routine, minimal coverage in match reports, entries in cricket databases, and a source which is not only dubious for reliability, but more importantly is very dubious whether it is even about the same person.

Anderson meets the very low standards of WP:NCRIC, which is currently under dispute for that exact reason. I redirected the page to List of Otago representative cricketers, which was reverted. I still support that redirect instead of deletion as probably the best outcome here. Fram (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 15:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:NCRIC. The guideline is being disputed by Fram, so take that for what it's worth. Article was redirected, then expanded. At worst, restore the redirect.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports). I'm hardly the only one disputing it, general agreement is for either scrapping it or rewriting it to make it a lot tighter. Fram (talk) 15:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect. 2020 marked the year that specialist projects could no longer make inclusions based on guidelines contrary to Wikipedia's general guidelines. The folks in WikiProject Football have taken this on board, and started deleting articles—by the numbers—on players with only 1 to 5 pro-tier games. Rugby has been cleaned up recently, and now the turn has come to cricket. Including players who are written about only in a couple of match reports, trivial or non-independent news is no longer feasible in Wikipedia, though it should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (although redirecting is often okay), and in this case there is no sensible reason for keeping. Geschichte (talk) 16:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This article subject clearly does not pass GNG. GNG is the minimum we require of all articles, and we should delete any article that does not meet it. In reality we should use SNGs for considerations like politicians where many people will superficially pass a loose reading of GNG, but it will be cases like unelected candidates, who so often pass so low, that it is just not reasonable to create articles on every single one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This FAILS NCRIC because WP:SPORTCRIT on the same page says "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." It also says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." Author needs to stop creating zero-notability perma-substub "articles", whether they've played just the bare one match or not. Reywas92Talk 18:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect with any relevant information merged to List of Otago 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 and I don't quite understand the delete votes given that this is now pretty much the default result at AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, as subject of article meets WP:NCRIC, having played two first-class matches in New Zealand. I note that WP:NCRIC is currently under discussion, but until such time as that discussion is concluded, to delete would be putting the cart before the horse. When / if WP:NCRIC changes, then this deletion discussion could be revisited if the article no longer meets the revised WP:NCRIC. Paora (talk) 01:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. 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 only sources we have are databases and passing incidental mentions in routine cricket reports. None of this establishes notability. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:49, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per Geschichte. Fails WP:GNG as it lacks quality sourcing to build a biography. These one-line articles make no sense to a typical visitor and wastes both parties' precious time (article creator and reader). Störm   (talk)  21:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete- no indication of meeting WP:GNG, which is what is required. No SNG can act as an exemption from it. Reyk YO! 10:07, 26 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.