Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Hand


 * 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 - Nabla (talk) 02:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Hand

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

While he is genuine, he appears to be a fairly minor commentator on a local radio station. I've cleaned out some of the more dubious BLP violations, leaving a rather sorry stub; while it probably could be cleaned up, I don't really think it's worth saving. A search for him on the BBC London website only brings up a couple of hits (the 15 or so hits are misleading - if you check the URLs most are to the same page), and there doesn't appear to be any mention of him on the BBC website since the end of the 2007 cricket season. The Google Test again shows he exists, but I'm not convinced there's enough to establish notability. More than willing to be convinced otherwise. (Note: I've posted a notification of this AFD at WP:WikiProject Cricket; presumably if he's notable someone there will be able to defend him, and if none of them have heard of them it'll argue against his notability.) —  iride  scent  23:12, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   —Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.   —Stephen Turner (Talk) 07:31, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep - whilst the article could do with a lot of work, being hagiographic and non-encyclopaedic in tone, I think he just about rates as notable. Radio London has a catchment area of over 10 million people, and his ball-by-ball commentary on Middlesex matches on the Internet can be listened to by Middlesex fans the world over. Whatever decision is reached, the same should apply to Mark Church. who fulfils the same role with Radio London for Surrey cricket as Hand does for Middlesex. As a Surrey fan, I listen to a lot of Church's commentary myself on the Net. For a fan of a county, it's rather marvellous to know that commentary on every ball of every match ios available on the Net. JH (talk page) 09:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I have had a go at beefing up the piece on Kevin Hand, although my ineptitude means that someone should add working links where I have made references to other relevant materials. He is certainly interesting and relevant, based on the points I have added to his piece - ball-by-ball commentary on cricket is a vital element of accessibility for blind and partially sighted people and the MCC and BBC's commitment to ball-by-ball commentary is a large contribution to that need in the UK - Kevin Hand's work for the BBC is important to that. People all over the world access the service and discuss it, amongst other places, on the Middlesex Supporter's website MTWD. these are "high accesss" parts of the internet - MTWD achieving some 1.5M to 2M hits per annum from some tens of thousands of people.

I agree that the article still needs more work, but I would strongly advocate that it should be kept and improved, not deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian L Harris (talk • contribs) 15:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete With a grand total of 0 RS in the article which actually name the subject, the article currently fails WP:V. Happy to return and rethink if at least 2 non-trivial RS references are included. --Dweller (talk) 22:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. SGGH speak! 12:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete per User:Dweller. I'm in his catchment area, but have not heard of him. Johnlp (talk) 14:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - no RSs to establish notability. In addition, most of the content would need to be deleted as POV, opinion and comment. TerriersFan (talk) 19:36, 10 May 2008 (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.