Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Baker (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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Lewis Baker (cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" (123), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 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 14:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:34, 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 14:36, 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. As seen above, the nominator is not willing the write a reply at everey AfD. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:51, 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) 16:15, 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) 21:24, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Non-notable cricketer. Störm   (talk)  21:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC, likely sources exist out there to expand this too. StickyWicket (talk) 23:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Like the sources you claimed to have found at Articles for deletion/Joseph Borton but refused to divulge, which couldn't be found by anyone else, and which you used to add false (or at least completely unverifiable) information to the article? People have been looking for sources for all of these AfDed articles, and it turns out that very few actually have any sources available, despite the existence of a searchable newspaper archive for the country. WP:NCRIC is totally broken as it allows for the creation of countless articles for people who don't pass WP:GNG, and these AfDs are here to challenge that incorrectly presumed notability. Simply avoiding showing any evidence that they are notable by hiding behind a way too permissive guideline is circular reasoning and should be disregarded by whoever closes this. Fram (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Yet you've never contributed to the cricket project in the past have you? Any articles created? Any articles expanded? Any GA or FA? Why the sudden interest in a project you've never shown an interest in? StickyWicket (talk) 20:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions about this article, its sources, ..., I'll gladly answer. A discussion about WP:OWN or your (mis)conceptions about me and how this works is not relevant for this AfD though. Fram (talk) 08:04, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete- The substantial sources necessary to have a stand-alone article don't seem to be there despite unsubstantiated claims to the contrary. WP:NCRIC is demonstrably extremely bad ad predicting which articles will eventually be shown to meet the inclusion requirements. Predictably the conversation has moved to erroneous and unnecessary personal attacks on the nominator. The best way to deal with database entries of statistics is to treat them as such in lists, rather than bloating match scorecards into faux-biographies. Reyk YO! 12:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete Not in Wisden 1998 so not notable enough for own page, so merge record onto List of Otago representative cricketers. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers which is an established alternative to deletion and provides an opportunity to recover the text of this article should sources be found which mean that the chap can be shown to pass the GNG. Trivial pass of NCRIC has been established at multiple AfD as not sufficient to show that sources will exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:50, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus is a very weak and unreliable guideline, but fails all meaningful criteria due to apparent lack of substantial coverage in non-database sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:27, 25 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.