Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samuel Blakely


 * 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. All arguments supporting keep, to me have merit (non-admin closure) Northern Escapee (talk) 06:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Blakely

 * – ( 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) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:57, 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 14:20, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:30, 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 14:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Found this article about him.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 15:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I checked with the article name, not the short version. Fram (talk) 16:21, 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. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:54, 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) 16:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Another member of the Blakely family. At least we have an article about him although it's mostly family history stuff. Nigej (talk) 19:10, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm   (talk)  21:34, 19 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) 21:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge/redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, but by consensus that only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is totally unreliable for cricketers such as these who have played very few matches (recent NSPORT discussion here). Insufficient coverage to meet any meaningful guidelines including GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's very easy when there are so many deletion discussions to get into the habit of copy and pasting responses. The two Otago Times articles clearly provide some level of in depth sourcing here. That's partly due to his family connections, but it deals with him. I'm happy that that's enough external sourcing to suggest a keep to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Just to confirm, I read the sources and searched for others. One of the OT articles is about his sister (Sam gets a passing mention), which leaves just the one article with substantial coverage. For me that is entirely insufficient for GNG/NBIO. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - if you want sources to be found, and cannot find them yourself, go to somewhere people will be able to find sources instead of nominating for AfD. This should be much easier with more current players, considering the number of sources which should be available. Bobo. 19:33, 24 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.