Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilfred Bannerman


 * 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 no consensus. Views split between keep, redirect and delete. A discussion to merge or redirect can happen after this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont)  12:52, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Wilfred Bannerman

 * – ( 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) 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:04, 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 14:36, 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) 15:50, 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) 16:14, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:CRIN. Again, why is someone like Sammyrice not being asked about this player? I can already tell you his full name is Wilfred Elles Bannerman and that he served in WWI. That's just with a 'lazy' 30 second search. StickyWicket (talk) 22:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:CRIN lets nearly everybody in. The discussions at WT:NSPORT showed that most people feel some tightening is needed. Many players who technically meet the current NCRIN have been deleted or redirected (after AFD) in the past, so simply stating "meets CRIN" is hardly sufficient as a rationale to keep an article. Having a full name or that he served in WW1 does nothing to establish notability (and it would be useful if you added your sources to the AFD: I presume you mean this, which shows that our article has a wrong year of birth apparently). And you or others are of course free to ask Sammyrice or anyone else to establish actual notability for this person. This can e.g. be done before changing a redirect back to an article. Fram (talk) 08:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:GNG. Non-notable cricketer. Störm   (talk)  21:54, 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) 21:59, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment, any consideration of a "redirect" to List of Otago representative cricketers (ditto the other 22+ articles nominated today that meet WP:NCRIC but not WP:GNG)? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:20, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * They were all redirects to that list, but were all reverted as "disruptive editing", so here we are. I have no objection to these being closed as "redirect", only to be turned into articles when actual GNG-satisfying sources are added. There are hundreds of other articles which should get the same treatment for the same reason (these 22 or so redirects are the ones starting with A and part of B for one subsection of New Zealand only...) Fram (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:56, 22 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete- the sourcing necessary to sustain a stand-alone article doesn't appear to be there. Passing a very lax and useless SNG that is demonstrably awful at predicting which articles pass our inclusion requirements isn't enough. It certainly doesn't provide a permanent exemption from sourcing requirements. Predictably, the conversation has moved to personal attacks and erroneous allegations against the nominator. Reyk YO! 12:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers, which is an established alternative to deletion with articles such as this. If we knew anything very much else about the chap I'd be happy enough to keep the article, and we can always reverse the redirect if other information comes to light.Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:42, 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... 12:27, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep, per WP:NCRIC. The point of that is that at this level there will be enough reliable sources, it is just a matter of someone putting in the time to find them. The existence of the page is the best trigger for that. Moonraker (talk) 18:24, 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.