Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Allan (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. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:18, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

James Allan (cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they "have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have posted the same incorrect claims about me (which are not relevant to keeping or deleting this article anyway) at all these AfDs. I hope you will be kind enough to take into account my answer at one of them and correct all your statements accordingly. Fram (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:CRIN with 16 appearances and as a living person more information is likely to become available. StickyWicket (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * And if and when "more information" comes available (from reliable indepth sources), an article would become acceptable. If we can't even find the actual sources for a living, fairly recent, player from an English-speaking, technologically advanced country, then when? Fram (talk) 14:18, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm   (talk)  21:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. 16 first-class appearances over several seasons is more than enough for a reasonable presumption of notability. Passes WP:CRIN now, but would also pass it in any of the reincarnations that have been discussed elsewhere. Johnlp (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep giving someone the chance to see if anyone's written anything about Otago cricketers. If they have then the number of appearances suggests there is likely to be some level of sourcing: it's rare that if any sources exists that someone with 16 first-class matches won't have some sort of GNG-level sourcing. But it is only a weak keep and I'd be happy to revisit this after a year or so. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:NCRIC. The point of that is that at this level there will be enough reliable sources, it is just a matter of someone putting in the time to find them. The existence of the page is the best trigger for that. Moonraker (talk) 18:27, 30 January 2021 (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.