Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Austin (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 keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm   (talk)  22:00, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Austin (cricketer)

 * – ( 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) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:03, 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 14:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:34, 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 14:35, 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. As seen above, the nominator is not willing the write a reply at everey AfD. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:51, 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) 16:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has played in 9 first-class matches, so meets WP:CRIN. Probably other sources in NZ avaliable for him as well. StickyWicket (talk) 11:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep passes WP:NCRIC and he took a fifer in his first-class career. Störm   (talk)  21:51, 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) 21:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closing administrator 112 of the last 120 edits made on January 19th are delete votes in AFD.  I don't think they should be considered not-votes.  They re-use the same handful of justifications, which I think makes them actual votes, not not-votes.  Geo Swan (talk) 08:41, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , the same could be said of the keep !votes. It seems to be okay to go Ctrl-C Ctrl-V when it's a personal attack prefaced by the word "keep". But similarly-styled delete !votes on vacuous microstubs all suffering from the same problems? Very forbidden. Reyk YO! 12:30, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My thouths exactly. There is a clear animus towards those of us who actual want to apply the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:27, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , you've made this assertion in many other AFD. IF special purpose notability guidelines didn't supercede GNG, for the narrow classes of BLP articles where they applied, there would be absolutely zero point in having them.  Geo Swan (talk) 08:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe Lambert would like to revist the article following the expansion. I wonder what WP:BEFORE work Lambert did before adding his standard boiler-plate !DELETE vote to every single AfD he's ever commented on.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 12:16, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per NCRIC. Geo Swan (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and delete to List of Otago representative cricketers. Death not in Wisden 1942 so not notable enough for own page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:02, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers which is an established alternative to deletion and provides an opportunity to recover the text of this article should sources be found which mean that the chap can be shown to pass the GNG. Trivial pass of NCRIC has been established at multiple AfD as not sufficient to show that sources will exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Trivially passes NCRIC, which by consensus is a very weak and unreliable guideline, but fails all meaningful criteria due to apparent lack of substantial coverage in non-database sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Fram has proven consistently unaware or just plain not caring of sports guidelines. He played at the highest domestic level, and I'm sure we could find some coverage somewhere. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's an entire page of newspaper sources covering the man from New Zealand newspapers. Lettlerhello • contribs 15:51, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I even found his obituary. Lettlerhello • contribs 16:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your "entire page" contains many sources not about this person, but e.g. about "a little boy named Austin" or something like this, and is thus worthless in itself. The sources you added to the article equally indicate the lack of importance for these "highest level" events: this one explicitly notes that only a few hundred people watched the game. Fram (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, now I get the "consistently unaware" personal comment you felt you needed to make here for your keep: Articles for deletion/Franzen (cyclist) was about one or more articles you created and which got deleted at AfD. What is it with all the grudge-bearing and revenge-seeking editors nowadays? Fram (talk) 16:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * "What is it with all the grudge-bearing and revenge-seeking editors nowadays?" Haha, very good! When the pandemic is over, I must get on the next Eurostar to see your stand-up tour. I have a good friend in Belgium, so hopefully you can get them on the guest-list.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't need restating at every AFD, but incidental mentions in team/squad announcements, scorecards and match reports do (almost) nothing to establish notability for the individuals involved, per WP:SPORTCRIT. The obituary is a substantial source, but it stands alone. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:05, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, when you say a whole page of sources, very few of them seem to actually be about the chap we have here (there are a variety of Mr Austin's - a lawyer, an engineers, someone working in the dairy industry, a trainer for a walker - some of those might be our man, but I don't think so; he's certainly not the chap in court for stealing something). There are a couple of cricket reports with passing references, but other than the obituary - which is an excellent find - I think we'd be struggling to find anything of real substance out of these. The obit moves this closer to a keep, but I think it would be a weak keep at best. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have found a second obituary, however it seems to be more or less a reproduction of the first. Lettlerhello • contribs 19:19, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scorpions13256 (talk) 19:22, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable early Otago cricket and rugby representative. Meets WP:NCRIC having played nine first-class matches for Otago over 12 seasons, and remembered as a fine all-rounder in newspaper reports in the 1940s, over 50 years after he finished playing. Also played five rugby matches for Otago in the early days of interprovincial rugby, and was one of the pioneer orchardists in the Tasman area, which would go on to become one of the main apple-growing areas of New Zealand. Paora (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers or just Delete; the only suitable page for ordinary team members with no notable responsibility. A few newspaper mentions would otherwise qualify about 8-10 million more people for WP articles.--Muirofsara (talk) 12:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: He captained the Otago team in a first-class match in 1885/86. Paora (talk) 20:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The bio, in its current form (30 Jan), demonstrates that he was notable beyond just cricket; GNG has been shown.  Schwede 66  19:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep The obituaries clearly provide the coverage required to establish notability under WP:GNG, which has absolutely nothing to do with importance or distinction. Even if Austin failed WP:NCRIC, which he does not, that policy is *only* relevant where a subject does not have GNG notability. I find it amazing that Fram should be redirecting articles without going through the AfD process first. That no doubt over-rides the good practice of notifying the creator. If we were dealing with a print encyclopaedia, some deletionism would be needed, but we are not, and it is now the greatest handicap WP suffers from. Moonraker (talk) 18:05, 30 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.