Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Burkett (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 Eastern Province representative cricketers. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Michael Burkett (cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. No coverage found. Störm  (talk)  16:26, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NCRIC, or at worst, redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep For Christ's sakes, don't go on a witch hunt now against cricket articles. This person meets WP:NCRIC, keep him. Lettlerhello • contribs 17:35, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:55, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  17:56, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails to meet WP:N guidelines. Notability is the measuring stick by which every article is tested no matter the subject or content. Every SNG that presumes notability based on criteria may do so but if articles are brought before AfD then we are instructed to base decisions on this and this alone. The subject fails this guideline and therefore the presumed notability is rebutted as per WP:N. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 21:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I would also like to note that WP:CRIC which is where WP:NCRIC states it draws its information from states that notability is "presumed". That does not mean it should be kept. Consensus, based on guidelines, from this AfD will decide that in this case. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 21:41, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete or merge/redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers. Nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability, but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases and routine/trivial coverage (squads, match reports, etc.). wjematherplease leave a message... 12:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not even close to meeting the GNG. That needs to be the minimum standard we hold all articles to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vaticidalprophet (talk) 20:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete- doesn't meet the WP:GNG. A rebuttable presumption of notability isn't an exemption from sourcing requirements, no matter what some would have us believe. Reyk YO! 16:17, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or Redirect, can be recreated as stand-alone article once sources are actually found. Fram (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect or Delete Other than stats that say he played 4 Eastern province games nothing else on the net, including Wisden. Either merge and redirect to List of Eastern Province representative cricketers or delete. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:06, 21 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.