Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Ford (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 delete. The "keep" !votes argue that this person meets NCRIC. However, that is only a guideline designed to be a shortcut to identify persons that are likely to pass GNG. Once notability is challenged, however, NCRIC is not enough and it has to be established whether or not the subject actually meets GNG. Randykitty (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

John Ford (cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable cricketer, nothing notable in searches about him, fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  02:25, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played first-class cricket.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players Has played 1 FC match, but an internet search didn't provide much. Sources may well exist offline though, especially due to his match being in the 1950s, and coverage for the County Championship tending to be good. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here, but no qualms if the articles is kept as sources may well exist. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. County Championship player. StickyWicket (talk) 10:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NCRIC, as he has played one first class match which is also a part of domestic cricket. A .  A  P  r  i  n  o  n   — Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Sports bios must meet WP:GNG (merely passing an SNG is irrelevant per a 2017 RfC), and he clearly does not. Furthermore he barely passes of an overly permissive sports SNG. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Performance on a youth team does not contribute to notability, especially without any substantive sources about him in particular. Reywas92Talk 05:23, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:GNG so passing NCRIC is not sufficient. Fails WP:BASIC due to a complete lack of depth in coverage, with nothing beyond basic match statistics being available (is he dead? who knows?) Pontificalibus 14:22, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A 17 year old opening the bowling in a county championship match in the 1950s seems sure to have generated coverage, as at the time there would have been daily coverage in all national newspapers of championship matches. Looks like one where the article author and AfD proposer just haven't found the coverage yet, rather than it not existing. It's important in this regard that there is already cited coverage in the Yorkshire Post. DevaCat1 (talk) 23:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure there was coverage, but it doesn't satisfy GNG and isn't enough to write a biography (e.g. the fact that he made his debut, opened the bowling and was the fourth Cotham Grammar School boy to play for the county that season - Yorkshire Evening Post 9 Aug 1951).Pontificalibus 06:05, 30 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. As others have said, NCRIC presumes a pass of GNG; AfD is where that presumption is proved, and clearly the actual coverage is not significant enough to meet notability. If someone finds offline sources in the future, then they can build his bio then. JoelleJay (talk) 05:16, 4 April 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.