Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Black (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 redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

James Black (cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, no reliable secondary sources (not databases) about Black could be found. Technically meets WP:NCRIC, but most editors agree that this guideline is way too loose, although no consensus on a specific replacement could be found so far. No objection against a redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers instead of deletion (although he is nothing but a name in that list, so not very informative); this was the solution I tried first, but this was reverted in a rather rude way. Fram (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - My worry is that if we start doing this we're going to start doing this with a surprisingly large percentage of non-Test players even from English-speaking countries. let alone non-English speaking countries. If you wish to make the Otago list more "informative", please do so. Bobo. 13:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, there is a large number of players which don't seem to meet the GNG (or at least for which no evidence is available at the moment to show this). Usually, the complaints are that redirecting or AfDing players from non-English language countries is some kind of systemic bias (or worse, racism); I don't get what the issue is with starting with players from an English-speaking language though. Fram (talk) 14:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Fram, I missed this comment from earlier, sorry, I've been away. I'm not saying it's a "problem" or an "issue", I'm just saying that it doesn't usually happen. Bobo. 17:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets N:CRIC. After a failed RfC, Fram is now trying to make his WP:POINT with wide-scale WP:DE across the project.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Question: Where's this RFC? Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It is here. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment: Hm, I do agree that the N:CRIC guidelines seem truly terrible and very incompatible with the general principle behind the GNG. At the same time, I also feel that the effort needs to be in improving N:CRIC rather than deleting all these pages individually and ignoring that N:CRIC exists.......Unfortunately, it seems the effort the reform N:CRIC was unsuccessful. So i have no idea how/what to vote. It's a pickle. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Following his 1 and only appearance for Otago, the Otago Witness for 26 Dec 1895 says "It is an unpleasant reflection that the second eleven that can be picked in Otago is greatly inferior to the first eleven. This reflection is forced upon one by tbe fact that in consequence of Clayton's inability to play against New South Wales a place in the team was given to Black, of the Albion Club, ... Black's inclusion in tbe Otago team is one of those inexplicable freaks of which selection committees are sometimes guilty ...", so unless we're making him notable as one of the weakest first class cricketers ever, I think we can dismiss his cricketing notability. Nigej (talk) 15:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. This is a selectively edited match report masquerading as a biography. NCRIC is only a presumption of GNG pass, and that presumption has been consistently shown to be near worthless for domestic cricketers with few appearances. Consensus in successive discussions is that NCRIC alone is not justification for a standalones article, and there is clear consensus to redirect articles such as this that fail GNG and SPORTBASIC. There have been countless AFDs (and other discussions) over the past few years to confirm this, and for individuals to persistently defy that consensus and revert such redirects is plainly disruptive (by resulting in unnecessary AFD discussions) unless substantial sources are provided. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. I don't see how this article can be on Wikipedia, even if I need to cite WP:IAR as my reasoning...Ideally someone should reform NCRIC to say that very clear-cut GNG fails should not be allowed under NCRIC. Apples&#38;Manzanas (talk) 17:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers per GNG failure and per WP:ATD Spiderone  19:06, 18 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) 21:06, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm   (talk)  21:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep with Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers as an alternative. We know a little more about him than nothing. It's not a massive amount of additional biography, but it moves a clear redirect into a marginal keep for me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:28, 24 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.