Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Rhodes (cricketer, born 1883)

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 to delete. After extended time for discussion, there is a clear consensus that barely being over the line for the criteria to keep a subject is still being over the line. However, it remains to be seen whether the potential sources will actually be found upon which several "Keep" !voters premise their decisions. BD2412 T 06:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

William Rhodes (cricketer, born 1883) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No obituary on his death, nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 23:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fails WP:GNG - the references are to a statistical database and the 2011 club yearbook, which "contains detailed records of various matches played in the 2010 season." I don't have access, but I wouldn't expect anything there apart from historical statistics/what's in the Cricprofile source. Furthermore, other sports frequently delete players who barely pass the SNG. This barely passes WP:NCRIC with only one match, and that SNG isn't finely tuned to predict when someone is notable anyways. Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Coming back to this one after a few days, there still hasn't been a keep !vote which has addressed which sources pass WP:GNG, just that there's a vague wave that one additional source might (even though the only source which might is a very short obituary, which I don't think counts.) Sports SNGs must comply with the GNG (based on a 2017 RfC), recent discussion shows WP:NCRIC isn't properly tailored to GNG, and therefore simply passing WP:NCRIC isn't enough for us to assume that WP:GNG is met. SportingFlyer T·C 16:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep What do you call a doctor who barely passes his exams? That's right, it's Doctor. If an article "barely passes" WP:NCRIC then it passes. He's a first class cricketer, so he's notable because of that. The whole point of wikipedia is to be comprehensive, and there's no point of having a list of every first class cricketer who's played for Yorkshire if some players are left out. The article gives full details of the game he played, there's no doubt about his existence or first class status, so he should stay in. Nick mallory (talk) 08:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree. There is far too much sophistry in AfDs on cricketers. There is a clear bright line test for notability as a cricketer, which is more restrictive than most other professional sports. DevaCat1 (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Nick Mallory. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Has only played 1 FC match and sources are limited. But his first-class match was for Yorkshire. I imagine the 2011 yearbook may have given more detail due to it being the 100th anniversary of him playing for the side. Searching is difficult due to other Will Rhodes cricketers who played for Yorkshire or were from Yorkshire including one current player. I believe it likely other sources exist offline. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he passes WP:NCRIC by virtue of having played for Yorkshire against India, which can hardly be seen as an irrelevant match. It will inevitably have been reported in Wisden 1912- it would be correct to check that edition of Wisden before any decision to delete, even if the obvious pass of the relevant notability guideline were to be ignored. DevaCat1 (talk) 01:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the article fails GNG which is what we require to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nick mallory. Ajshul 😃 (talk) 02:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete meeting a presumption of meeting GNG afforded by a (dubious) SNG is not a sufficient reason when the article subject actually fails GNG. And having played 1 match a long time ago, back in the days when not everything was immediately reported on the (at the time non-existent) internet, is further indication that this subject is unlikely to meet GNG. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment very small obituary in Wisden 1942 - the almanac archive is online on ESPNCric site it's easy to search.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - these are becoming ever and ever more peculiar justifications for beginnings of AfD discussions Especially when the claims are outright lies. As for current justifications of taking to AfD discussions: "Lack of obituary in Wisden", "no birthdate available", "not sure whether right or left handed"? These are becoming ever and ever more peculiar. Next it will be, "did not die on the Titanic". (Don't worry John B. Thayer, you're safe!) Bobo. 22:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not see a policy based argument for keeping in your diatribe, except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT directed at those who disagree with your stance; and even a small obituary might not be enough to meet GNG, which requires significant coverage, not just run of the mill things... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just an ironic observation of logic. Sarcasm is hard to express in as toxic an atmosphere as we have today. ;) Please don't assume any malicious intent - none was made, honestly. Bobo. 01:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The subject's biographical information is more complete than a recent FA and therefore meets our standards. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Andrew Davidson. StickyWicket (talk) 22:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's bit of a stretch to disambiguate this as "cricketer" when he played just a single known game! With zero significant coverage here, this is the epitome of non-notability. Other stuff exists is not a valid argument and should be disregarded by the closer, with the linked article showing a failure of FA. Reywas92^Talk 00:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How would you disambiguate, given that this individual was a cricketer? William Rhodes (human)? Bobo. 14:50, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept, but the article surely needs expansion. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can't just say "needs expansion" as a reason to keep, it's rather hard to expand when there are no substantive sources to derive content from in the first place. Reywas92^Talk 01:04, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.