Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Ross (cricketer) (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Consensus is that he has played in enough first-class matches and therefore he meets notability criteria. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 17:20, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Nicholas Ross (cricketer)
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

No notable coverage found about him. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  20:48, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep meets WP:NCIRC having played in eight matches for Cambridge Uni.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Does not meet NCRIC, which states "highest international or domestic level"; university matches fall below that standard (and as such no longer enjoy FC status). wjematherplease leave a message... 10:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They don't have FC status from this year onwards, but held that status until 2020.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Is this clearly explained anywhere Lugnuts? Does this need to be explained more clearly elsewhere? Bobo. 18:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Here you go, there is your reference. HawkAussie (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I wasn't doubting, it's just that so many lies get passed around here at the moment that you feel you don't know things anymore... Bobo. 08:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Almost as if my edits are being stalked. Actually, university matches around this time were still of sufficient standard - there's no presumption of quality in FC status, it is what it is, first-class. StickyWicket (talk) 10:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - these matches counted as first-class matches at the time - this status presumably cannot and will not be reversed retroactively. Bobo. 11:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The FC status of these matches is not in question, and is irrelevant for a guideline which states "highest... level" (NOTE: the guideline does not state all first-class matches meet this definition and CRIN explains clearly that is not what is meant). I see no sources to support these matches as being the highest level; indeed at this time (as now) they were largely viewed as practice matches and a means of university players gaining experience against higher standard opposition. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I stopped reading after the first bit which showed the AfD nomination was completely pointless. Perhaps next time people think about sending things to AfD they will make sure we can find sources first. That would take even less effort than the people in question finding the sources themselves! Bobo. 18:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is the problem with exclusionism y'see. People making up rules as they go along. Bobo. 18:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards. It is not reasonable to expect someone who has searched and been unable to find sources (per BEFORE) to find them before nominating. What would be helpful, it if those creating these articles found the sources first (if they exist, which seems unlikely here). The same applies to those blindly saying we should keep such articles. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We already did find the sources. If you doubt the fact that we did, then it's not our fault. If you can help out, please do. If you're talking about sourcing articles, there are much more high-profile players whose articles need to be "sourced" appropriately. Why can't we work on those instead? Bobo. 18:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * All articles "need to be sourced appropriately". We should not ignore inadequately sourced articles because the subject is relatively obscure; we should attempt to locate sources for them, and if they cannot be found, the article should be deleted or an alternative option found. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you can help out, please do. Our project could greatly benefit from people who are willing to help out. Bobo. 19:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I could help out by participating on these AFDs and attempting to locate sources. Is is disheartening to think that some believe sourcing outside of cricinfo/cricketarchive databases is unnecessary. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If you were willing to try the other way around, then we might take the effort to hack our project down seriously... As I say, I didn't bother reading after the bit where you said the AfD nomination was pointless. Bobo. 19:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At no point did I say that. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:26, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. First-class cricketer playing eight matches. Five Test players in the opposition for his first match, six for his second... of course these were games at the highest domestic level. Johnlp (talk) 12:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge/redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players; per my comments above, and despite protestations and claims to the contrary (strength of the opposition is irrelevant), none these matches were the "highest international or domestic level", so this does not meet NCRIC. In addition, even if NCRIC were met, the presumption of notability afforded by that guideline is extremely weak (confirmed by the consensus of successive discussions at NSPORT and countless AFDs, as can easily be seen from the cricket delsort archive); NSPORT also does not supersede GNG. We ultimately require substantial coverage in reliable sources to confirm notability, and there is none. All we have (and all I can find) are wide ranging databases, scorecards and the occasional incidental mention in a match report. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "none these matches were the ""highest international or domestic level""" Incorrect. They were bestowed with first-class status, therefore they were at the highest domestic level.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wrong. "First-class" does not (automatically) equal "highest level". This has been endlessly discussed and is readily apparent from the first-class criteria. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nope, you are the one who is wrong here. First-class is the highest level, otherwise these matches would have the status of "other" on cricket records.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "First class in name only" has been a common phrase over the years. But I know why you are taking this position, and also know that you don't believe it, so won't waste time arguing. In addition, whether he trivially passes/fails a weak SNG is a smokescreen, the real issue is the lack of GNG level coverage. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep As per all above. Setreis (talk) 17:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect unless substantial coverage can be found. Fram (talk) 08:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete showing up in a publication that is merely a complete list is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep if the matches wasn't first class and I would say delete but as the universities matches did have first class until 2020 then this should be kept. HawkAussie (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep meets WP:NCIRC as per above. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would agree with the above that the matches he played in were counted as first class at the time and thus it seems he qualifies under current rules set out by WP:NCRIC. Dunarc (talk) 21:09, 27 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.