Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Taylor (cricketer, born 1999)


 * 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 no consensus. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:31, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Matthew Taylor (cricketer, born 1999)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm  (talk)  17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:59, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep - He's played first-class cricket, so he's automatically notable. I've added a source that mentions his performance in one of those matches. – PeeJay 16:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The cricket SNG criterion is "highest domestic level" – regardless of the status afforded individual matches, university cricket (especially at this time) falls below this standard. As such, this fails NCRIC and he does not get the weak presumption (not guarantee) of notability offered by it. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - he has played first class cricket, which is the key element in WP:CRIN along with List A matches. There are many matches played at first class level which are not county championship, but which are included in first class players' statistics, and which qualify for notability. To take Wjemather's point, a correct reading of WP:CRIN is that all first class and List players are automatically notable, and some players who have not played first class cricket may also be notable if they played in matches before 1947, as those 'important matches' may not have been designated as first class. Note that WP:CRIN states definitively that a first class match is an important match. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DevaCat1 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players Has played 2 FC matches, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where players with 1 or a few matches but no coverage, are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect per Rugbyfan22 - he clearly fails WP:GNG, which makes sports SNGs moot - basically just referenced to Cricket Archive. SportingFlyer  T · C  01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 11:48, 3 March 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Going to go out on a limb to relist here and encourage those addressing cricket-specific notability guidelines to address whether he meets the broader standard—to which subject area-specific thresholds are subordinate—set out in WP:GNG.
 * Keep Has played in first-class matches so meets the notability criteria.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. No WP:SIGCOV; only wide-ranging databases, scorecards, etc. In fact fails all notability criteria including the very weak NCRIC; per my above comment, there is no automatic first-class—highest-level equivalence here. It should be noted that such matches no longer have first-class status as a result of this long-standing paradox. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:29, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not even close to meeting the GNG which is the standard all articles must meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: This player played only two first class matches and most important thing, his age only 21. He can definitely play more matches in future but in current scenario, he is non-notable player. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep: notable as he's played first class cricket AlexdeGrey (talk) 10:04, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Has played two first-class matches so meets CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 10:07, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Actually fails CRIN which states clearly: "N.B. Judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing a senior player... in historical rather than statistical terms". Scorecards plainly do not meet this requirement. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:24, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Blah, blah, blah. You and the Belgian (in cohorts with that charming JPL character) pick and choose what is and isn't notable, so won't be taking lectures from you. StickyWicket (talk) 11:38, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Too many within the cricket project have invented/sustained false-equivalences and selectively ignored the most pertinent sections of guidelines (project essay, in this case) in order to pursue their goal of creating an article for every recorded cricketer. In the past, team-!voting (mostly hand-waving at NCRIC) has often proved successful in retaining such articles at AFD, almost always without providing any evidence of significant coverage, but thankfully that seems to no longer be the case. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:05, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Go  Phightins  !  00:02, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Per the relist, WP:GNG's more important than any individual sports notability guideline, and literally the only sources in the article are to database/archival websites. Unless someone can actually provide significant coverage of him, this can't be kept just because a database website says he played a couple of matches. SportingFlyer  T · C  00:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Taylor has competed at the highest domestic level. Additional references have been added to the article AlexdeGrey (talk) 09:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What we have in this article is a textbook WP:REFBOMB. The non-database sources are nothing more than passing mentions in routine local match reports, squad lists and scorecards. Has still not played at the highest level. There is still no significant coverage. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:46, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there is a way to win here on the basis of comments like- when there are no external citations, that's bad; when there are citations, that is bad as well. Cricketers don't only become notable when there is a Wisden obituary to work from. This is why guidelines like WP:NCRIC exist, even though they are widely ignored in AfD discussions such as the current one. DevaCat1 (talk) 08:44, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not about winning/losing. Guidelines such as NCRIC are an indicator, not a guarantee, of worthiness for a standalone article. Articles such as this, that barely (or arguably don't) meet that low bar, require WP:SIGCOV; as yet, none has been found. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The criticism before was lack of references, now it's effectively cite overkill. If competing in first-class cricket doesn't confer notability, then I think the guidelines need to make that clear, otherwise wikipedia contributors are contributing their time for nothing AlexdeGrey (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The definition of First-class cricket should also be changed on wikipedia if the article is to be deleted AlexdeGrey (talk) 09:46, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is no way to dress up that what sourcing there is is no better then a bunch of passing mentions in match reports and falls way below the standard of GNG level sourcing. That this is best that can be found clearly shows that NCRIC falls below the inclusion standards set by the community. The obvious solution is to create list articles but the wikiproject refuses to play ball so delete is the only policy based outcome here, Spartaz Humbug! 19:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cricket) QUOTE A cricket figure is presumed notable if they have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level UNQUOTE. At a domestic level, it is a fact that Taylor has competed in two first-class cricket matches AlexdeGrey (talk) 04:53, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The article is now better and more comprehensively sourced than previously following amendments, so there is a better indication of the notability of the subject, in addition to the WP:NCRIC pass; the case for retaining as a wikipedia article appears to have been significantly strengthened. DevaCat1 (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There is still no significant coverage; the sources in the article are scorecards, profiles and statistics from wide-ranging databases, and passing mentions in local cricket reports – none of which contributes to establishing notability. The first-class matches he played were also not the "highest domestic level" (they were effectively pre-season friendlies for the counties, in the dying days of such matches being accorded status), so claims of a trivial pass of NCRIC are extremely weak. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:31, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. First-class cricket is by definition the highest domestic level; no distinction is made beyond that, which would be like saying that runs against Zimbabwe aren't "real" test runs because Zimbabwe are considerably weaker than Australia or a degree from Oxford is more of a degree than one from Oxford Brookes. A first-class game is a first-class game. You may not like that, but it is factually true. The games were sufficiently significant to receive coverage on the BBC Sport website; this is not a niche or specialist website, but one which covers only the highest domestic level of sports. And there is nothing in WP:GNG to say that local newspapers are not relevant for the purposes of establishing notability, so I am unclear as to what point you are making by handwaving at that point. DevaCat1 (talk) 13:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The definition of first-class cricket is mostly based on the format of the game and left for local authorities to accord status to teams as they see fit – standard has never been a criterion. As such, status has continued to be accorded for historical, traditional or development reasons (the latter in the case of the MCC universities programme). To claim that these non-competitive university matches in which county 1st XI (and 2nd XI) players did little more than get loose and pad their averages is the same standard as the County Championship simply does not correlate with reality. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Taylor competed against Hampshire County Cricket Club and Middlesex County Cricket Club, both of which are first-class cricket clubs. Taylor played for a first-class cricket club and has competed at the highest domestic level which confers notability, unless the guidelines are wrong in which case the guidelines should be changed to save the person who wrote this article, and future contributors, wasting their time AlexdeGrey (talk) 10:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Taylor competed against Hampshire County Cricket Club and Middlesex County Cricket Club, both of which are first-class cricket clubs. Taylor played for a first-class cricket club and has competed at the highest domestic level which confers notability, unless the guidelines are wrong in which case the guidelines should be changed to save the person who wrote this article, and future contributors, wasting their time AlexdeGrey (talk) 10:29, 21 March 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.