Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Forbes (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 delete. The "keep" side offers no evidence (i.e. substantial coverage in reliable sources) for the notability of this person. They complain about the renomination after a previous AfD was withdrawn, but it is not clear why this renomination would constitute a procedural defect, and these complaints do not address the reason for which deletion is requested.  Sandstein  13:16, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Forbes (cricketer)
AfDs for this article:


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

Per recent nomination: "Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSPERSON, "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG (general notability guideline)." No significant coverage presented, search only uncovers listings."

The previous AfD was withdrawn based on meeting WP:NCRIC. However, NCRIC simply tells us that sources are likely to exist, and this article fails WP:SPORTBASIC which states "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Without evidence of significant coverage, there is no basis to keep this article. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep per StickyWicket at Articles for deletion/Sarah Forbes (cricketer). Still absolute nonsense. StAnselm (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Why should we keep an article that fails our basic notability requirements for sportspeople? How does meeting NCRIC demonstrate notability if no significant coverage has actually been found? –dlthewave ☎ 19:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women,  and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 19:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep, you don't nominate articles for deletion hours after they're just kept! BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above as this was closed only a few hours ago.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, although it's probably better going through WP:DRV . My own search has not turned up any WP:SIGCOV, just routine coverage and various database listings. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 21:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been notified that WP:DRV wouldn't apply here. My vote still stands. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 08:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NCRIC is part of WP:NSPORT, and thus whether an athlete passes it is irrelevant if they fail the broader NSPORT guidelines, which they do here by failing WP:SPORTCRIT #5. BilledMammal (talk) 15:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose redirect, per WP:R #1; there are multiple valid targets (List of Ireland women Twenty20 International cricketers, List of Ireland women ODI cricketers, Dragons (women's cricket), South Africa women's cricket team in Ireland in 2022) and a redirect to one of them will make it harder for readers to find the others. BilledMammal (talk) 07:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * My reading of that is that it refers to pages about, in this case, other cricketers named Sarah Forbes, not that there are multiple possible targets. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment per the previous AfD, at worse the redirect should be restored. Or alternatively, moved to draft space. Neutral courtesy ping (per WP:APPNOTE) to those who commented at that discussion - . Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment and procedural speedy keep - A new deletion discussion two days after one was already closed is, at best, disruption. If you don't believe the final decision/discussion (which was essentially unanimous) was handled correctly, there are other courses of action. AfD is not deletion review. Where were the original delete !voters last time around and why didn't they want their voices heard? Bobo. 18:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Where were the original delete !voters last time around and why didn't they want their voices heard? - I don't appreciate the insinuation that my vote is motivated by anything other than the quality of the encyclopedia, especially not when it comes from an admin. I didn't vote in the original discussion because I don't check AfD every day. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 19:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This is a bad faith nomination, only 2 days after the previous speedy keep/withdrawn nomination. An international cricketer who meets the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines. StickyWicket (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * The previous nomination was withdrawn after a day; if additional information is available, as it is here, it is not disruptive or bad faith to create a new discussion soon after. However, what is disruptive is !votes to keep that rely solely on NCRIC, and ignore the broader requirements of NSPORT. BilledMammal (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. You can't nominate an article just two days after nom. Follows the revised WP:NCRIC guidelines either way. Cheers!!! -- WellThisIs TheReaper  Grim 01:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment Closing admins should keep in mind that AfD closes should be policy-based - In this case, WP:NCRIC does not assume notability. The guideline that's being cited by Keep voters here simply says Significant coverage is likely to exist. This is not the same thing as a presumption of notability, which relies on the subject of an article actually being "the subject of significant coverage." Votes that misrepresent the notability guidelines here are either bad-faith or disrespect policy - either way, they don't count towards WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 07:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Closing admins know how to judge consensus. They don't need to be told this. Bobo. 08:17, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the blatant misrepresentations of policy in this discussion, I feel it's important to clearly note. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/they)Talk to Me! 08:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm just imagining every international sportsperson who "has not won a significant honor" as an international sportsperson - having done so. I feel sorry for the England footy team! Bobo. 08:29, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, "deletion review" is not the same as sending an article for AfD for a second time. Deletion review is for judging for consensus in the original discussions. Since nobody thought to !vote delete that time around, deletion review would have been a pointless process - although it would have probably stopped this from happening... or would it? Bobo. 08:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep WP:NCRIC works under the interpretation that sourcing GNG 'likely' exists for a player/person passing the criteria that is set out in it. In the first discussion, many rightly voted that the player passed WP:NCRIC (because she does) and so that sourcing would likely exist. The nominator then chose to withdraw his nomination. A second AfD less than 24 hours later offers no time for any cricket editor to find sourcing on the subject, which may well exist in more local or cricket related media that isn't easily accessible in a simple search, and add it to the article. Personally I feel it's a nomination in bad faith who instead of a second AfD should have discussed the article with the Cricket WikiProject who may well have been able to improve the article and had to save the second AfD from happening. On a slightly different note, I don't believe there's currently a suitable redirect here given there's a few different lists she could be redirected to, but some time for our Women's cricket editors to do some digging would be helpful. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Nominators need to be informed that there are channels by which they can require extra eyes on an article before sending to AfD, especially when they will most likely be unaware they can do so. It is clear that there is a bucketful of research which needs to be done in women's cricket given the number of names which are unclear/unavailable. Bobo. 09:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Leaving aside the extremely unusual way in which this article has been nominated for deletion, it's clearly an interesting case to consider the nuances of the various deletion guidelines that might apply.
 * Forbes is young and hasn't played a large amount of higher level domestic cricket, and plays in a part of the world where coverage of women's cricket is likely to be difficult to find in the major media sources we have easily available to us using the internets. It's difficult to judge if there would be more likely to be sources off line or in obscure media - I'd say it's possible, but not certain. So, she clearly passes NCRIC which suggests coverage would be likely. But she also fails WP:SPORTBASIC as she hasn't "achieved success in a major international competition at the highest level". Although my reading of that is that neither has Darren Stevens for example, so I'm not actually convinced that it's a particularly useful thing to measure any article against. It also seems to be introducing barriers beyond those which are placed by WP:GNG which, for example, doesn't specify multiple sources in the same way or success at an international level. Does the article meet GNG then? I don't think so at present, although there are plenty of passing mentions.
 * So, what to do? If this were a male cricketer playing at international level for a team like this, we'd almost certainly be able to find sources - and if we couldn't then we should do something about the article. If she were older and we still couldn't find sources I'd be concerned. But she's not older and she's not male. So, do we reinforce the biases within the media and determine that this person is not notable at all? Or do we say, you know what, she's not likely, in the circumstances, to have gotten that much coverage yet so let's decide to leave this article on an international cricketer in place for now and see what happens. Let's revisit it in, say, three years and see what's occurred. Is that a reasonable compromise approach to take?
 * In many people's eyes, almost certainly not, because it's a compromise and Wikipedia doesn't do compromise very well at all.
 * What shouldn't happen here is that the article be deleted. There are really clear ATD that can be used for all the common reasons: it's more efficient, it allows the article history to retained along with the attribution, it ensures sources which may go offline are retained for future use and it provides a basis to re-create the article at a later date if suitable sourcing can be found. The redirect would go to List of Ireland women ODI cricketers for now - it's a tricky one to redirect I suppose, but the precedence of ODI cricket over T20I cricket means this is the best choice given her career to data.
 * So, this is either a partial merge with redirect as outlined above or a very weak keep on the basis that the article can be returned to in the future to determine notability at that stage and that this ensures that the basic tenant of WP:NOTPAPER is applied and that WP:5P1 and WP:5P5 are considered in the spirit of aiming to broaden the scope of encyclopaedic coverage and not reinforce in built biases. I don't mind which it is, but it's not a delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Am I missing something here? Did NSPORT get rewritten to abolish the requirement for GNG? Did we decided to start ignoring WP:CRYSTAL? Have we overturned WP:NEXIST in favor of WP:NMAYBEWILLEXISTONEDAY? I guess we're now a platform to right the great wrong of...the media not giving individualized significant coverage to each Irish WODI cricketer?? No one here is even claiming they sincerely believe GNG coverage exists! And what info could possibly be useful and DUE to merge elsewhere--is the proposed redirect target or her current team really supposed to contain all the former youth squads and caps for each person? The fact that many keep !voters deliberately misrepresented the applicability of NCRIC in the first AfD, effectively bullying the nom into withdrawing, just makes it even clearer that it was appropriate to renominate. It's also telling that some of those same !voters are now advocating keep based on this being a speedy renom rather than actually arguing why the subject merits a standalone article. JoelleJay (talk) 02:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * As much as I dislike replies to arguments at AfD, I should clarify what I mean by merge. We could merge something along the lines of Forbes was born in 2002 at Dublin and made her international debut against South Africa in 2022. With refs. We can provide a very short pen portrait of a current player in this way, and we retain the original sourcing and attribution from the article as we're redirecting rather than deleting it. This seems to me to be entirely within the bounds of the policy WP:ATD. If you'd like me to expand on any of my other points, please ping me as I don't have this page watchlisted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Clear fail of WP:GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Fails WP:NSPORT and WP:SIGCOV. Those arguing keep under NCRIC are doing so under a now deprecated argument after this RfC from January–March 2022. That RFC established that sources with independent significant coverage actually be produced in evidence at AFD in order for athlete articles to be kept. We no longer make assumptions of notability. We need to see the evidence.4meter4 (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete Well, I might as well slam the last nail in... the original AfD was mine and I withdrew after a howl of rage at my 'absolute nonsense' nomination, which just goes to show you should have the courage of your convictions. That this and other sports related nominations should be so controversial speaks, I think, to the fact that guidelines have not been updated with the clear outcomes of recent consensus, particularly with regard to the requirement that sportspeople (football included, a game that remains to be addressed properly and clearly in the WP:NSPORT guideline which is a wee bit mad if you ask me) pass WP:GNG regardless of appearances. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 04:56, 1 July 2022 (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.