Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Julia Price


 * 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 speedy keep especially after the improvements by Nick mallory. I am declining Bduke's suggestion to list this version in a separate AFD because the girl is nonnotable, and the article would fall under CSD A7. Non-admin closure. YechielMan 07:59, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Julia Price

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Page fluctuates between being an inherently unnotable child, and an Australian lady cricket player with practically no info on her. Either can we decide to keep one, or get rid of them both (Or, of course, split them up into a disambiguation page). USernamezz 12:48, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete The cricket player Julia seems to be a stub-length article with no assertions of notability, and the other is clearly a vanity page by a proud family member. Will be tagging as such shortly. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 14:58, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Tagged per Criteria A7: Unremarkable. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: The cricket player stub version, which this article used to be until February this year, is this version. Her biography on Cricinfo is here. I'm leaving the unwikified singer(?) version in place since it is lengthier.


 * Voters: please do comment on the notability of both versions; the article can be reverted to whichever version this discussion finds notable, and protected at that version if necessary. Regards, &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 16:09Z 


 * Comment I still feel both are a cause for deletion. The cricket player is the only one which even causes me to blink and a cursory search for information still turns up absolutely nothing... Though I'm sure someone more familiar with cricket might be able to come up with something. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:16, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I notice you have looked at both versions even before your first comment. However, I'm not sure a claim of appearing "for the Australian women's cricket team" is weak enough to warrant speedy deletion. In soccer, appearing for a national team would be quite notable, for instance. &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 16:15Z 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions.   &mdash;Resurgent insurgent 2007-04-19 16:19Z 
 * Keep the cricketer - she has played 10 Tests and 84 One-Day Internationals, as per the Cricinfo link above. Merely 1 of either would make her pass WP:BIO for sportspeople, as having competed at the highest possible level. - fchd 17:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep cricketer per WP:BIO. Stephen Turner (Talk) 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Neutral I still don't know a thing about Cricket, but will abstain from commenting for now if the candidate meets the criteria. I'd recommend sourcing the article with something which meets WP:RS to avoid problems in the future. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 19:02, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the cricketer, wouldn't be an issue for deletion if it wasn't for the vandalism. I'm semi-protecting the page for a week, to prevent further abuse.  Mango juice talk 20:27, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Extremely strong keep for the cricketer. Just because the sport is primarily a male one, doesn't mean that women don't play it to the highest level. If she has played 84 ODIs that makes her very high ranking within her sport - the fourth most capped Aussie - and given that Australia is arguably the world's top nation in Women's cricket... She was the regular wicketkeeper for a world champion national team, and ranks right near the top on the list of most dismissals made in ODIs (see here). If this doesn't meet notability, then the likes of Mia Hamm and Anne Donovan also merit deletion. Grutness...wha?  01:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the cricketer as per WP:BIO as having played the relevant sport at the highest possible level. Capitalistroadster 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 02:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the cricketer for the reasons others have given. She is clearly notable. The other version seems non-notable. For clarity, I suggesting moving one version, adding a disambiguation page, keeping the cricketer and bringing the other article on the other person back here at AfD. --Bduke 02:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep the Cricketer as a national sporting rep she meets WP:BIO. See here for further details.  --Mattinbgn/talk 04:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep. This AfD is an excellent example of attempting to fix a problem with a completely wrong solution.  If an article is very short and frequently vandalised, it should be tagged for cleanup/expansion and semi-protected - not sent to AfD! -- Chuq (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, player has obviously competed at the highest level of two sports. Completely ridiculous nomination, in my opinion.  Lankiveil 07:48, 20 April 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep the article is terribly short and stubby, but the subject clearly meets sportsperson notability guidelines, having played at Ashes and World Cup level. --Canley 09:29, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I added more information and references to the article, it should pass muster now. She's clearly a notable person, having played Test cricket for her country.  Sometimes it's easier to spend 10 minutes making a perfectly justifiable article better, rather than an hour trying to get rid of it. Perhaps lankybugger could do more than a 'cursory search' for information on a person before tagging them for deletion.  She's on cricinfo and cricket archive and even a google search for 'julia price cricket' shows she's notable straight away by coming up with lots of match reports for her games for Australia and Queensland. Nick mallory 10:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment As I mentioned, I did a cursory search and found nothing. However, as I also mentioned, my knowledge of cricket could fill a thimble with room to spare, hence why I changed from Delete to Neutral in this matter and defaulted to the opinions of editors with more experience in the field of cricket than myself. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 16:27, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep International cricketer. Postlebury 20:51, 21 April 2007 (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.
 * Keep International cricketer. Postlebury 20:51, 21 April 2007 (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.