Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Naylor


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to List of Scotland ODI cricketers. Consensus is sourcing is insufficient Star   Mississippi  14:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Liam Naylor

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This was the only in-depth coverage I was able to find on the subject, which is not enough to meet WP:GNG as more than one publication is needed. JTtheOG (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket,  and Scotland. JTtheOG (talk) 03:04, 8 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. Redirect. I'd also classify it as WP:TOOSOON, as the article only lists minimal play. Also, he's 22. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 03:58, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 08:35, 15 October 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 03:35, 23 October 2023 (UTC) Relisting comment: Final relist. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 11:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Scotland ODI cricketers Doesn't seem to be enough coverage currently for a WP:GNG pass, however their is a suitable redirect here per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. International cricketer for a leading associate, in the nascent stage of his career. More sources likely to become available. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 11:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Respectfully, the article needs to prove notability at the time of it's inception. I think @Rugbyfan22's redirect suggestion is best. Nobody expects the UnexpectedSmoreInquisition (talk)! 22:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep: notable per independent, reliable 2 refs added since the deletion nomination; both are from the Liverpool Echo
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 16:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment -- GNG states that "a series of publications by the same author or in the same periodical is normally counted as one source." JTtheOG (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)


 * JTtheOG, thanks for pointing that out -- I'd never noticed that footnote (Notability, footnote 4). My interpretation is that "a series  of publications" does not refer to 2 or more  unconnected  articles. I suspect footnote 4 probably refers to  serialized  content (for example, a 3-day, 3-part series on a given topic). If that's correct, I don't think the footnote applies to this subject. Over the course of 100s of AfDs, I've never seen this footnote invoked before -- this makes me think this is a narrow rule. Otherwise, we'd be tossing articles just because a subject's multiple references are only to New York Times articles or to Economist articles.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 23:59, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
 * This is humbling. After saying I've never seen footnote 4 come up before, this was just raised 4 hours ago at Articles for deletion/Sangramsingh Thakur. That said, I still think this refers to serialized content.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 00:04, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. I think that this is a very reasonable interpretation of the excerpt. I can't say that I've seen this exact quote used in an AfD before, although I've seen the principal applied in a couple of sportspeople AfDs. Cheers, JTtheOG


 * Redirect per . The two RS seem to be considered by GNG to be one source – while the footnote requires a series, Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability pretty clearly considers multiple articles by one author the same source. Pinging A. B. due to the GNG discussion above. Tollens (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2023 (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.