Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Clark

Jackie Clark

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. Of the three sources, one is a dead link, one is a closed statistical database and one is an open statistical database. Sistorian (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and New Zealand. Sistorian (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links often have archived versions available, like this one: [1] Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Indignant Flamingo. I forgot about Wayback. However, the mentions of Jackie Clark are routine only and I still think there is a lack of significant coverage in the article.

Sistorian (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she is mentioned here but the whole point of that article is that there isn't much coverage on her. I strongly suspect that significant coverage is provided in The Warm Sun on My Face: The Story of Women's Cricket in New Zealand, but I don't have access to it. StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a copy of that book on order, but it'll be a couple of weeks before I'll get hold of it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable as an international women's cricketer playing at the highest level. You know, it really does baffle me that people can't see this and take a step back and for moment think they might be notable, given the level they played at. There is a Cricket Project which can help. User:Sammyrice - another notable New Zealand cricketer, do you have any additional sources to hand? StickyWicket (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given her notable career, I'm sure there must have been plenty of stuff about her in the NZ media at the time, but as it was before the Internet age the problem lies in accessing it, especially for those of us not living in NZ. JH (talk page) 06:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this annotated bibliography, this article: McLeod, Marion. "Stumping a myth", Listener 120(2497):26-28 (December 26, 1987) is mostly about Jackie Clark. But note that that article specifically discusses "lack of media coverage". So maybe it's a situation where we feel there should have been (more) coverage, and some people at the time maybe even agreed with that, but the coverage that definitely exists from that time seems to confirm that there was a lack of coverage. In the immortal words of Castor Troy, "what a predicament!" Indignant Flamingo (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that the Listener article, which we know to be about her, discussing the lack of coverage of her is the sorts of significant coverage that we need to keep the article we have on her? We don't need to actually be able to access the article or to include anything from it in the article, only to know that it's about her (I think, the whole NEXIST thing is something else where the goalposts seem to have moved quite randomly for me). It's unlikely that we'll be able to access a magazine article from 1987 electronically, and it may be a bit niche for NZ libraries beyond the really big ones. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NZ do have the Papers Past digitised library but its newspapers section only goes to 1979 and the other sections didn't turn up anything when I searched for Jackie Clark or Jacqueline Clark. She is briefly mentioned in this article that laments the lack of information about women's cricket in NZ. I think we would always have to verify that the "Stumping a myth" article in the Listener has significant coverage on Clark, maybe the NZ Wikiproject could help? The article is available at the National Library in Wellington and possibly other libraries according to this. Alvaldi (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of stories seems to drop off at PapersPast after the 1950s from my experience. I'll look at The Times archive when I get the chance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StickyWicket. W C M_email 08:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Zealand women's national cricket team if no sources can be found at this time. Alvaldi (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extended career for one of the leading women's international teams at the time. Beeeggs (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - International cricketer. No other rationale required. Of course more information needs to be dug up about women's cricket - but that's true everywhere, not just in this situation. Bobo . 11:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sourcing we've already found, and what we'll likely find in a more in depth search it looks to be a clear GNG pass. There is a suitable redirect if required though, although I don't think this will be needed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Listener article mentioned above provides the significant coverage needed to pass NSPORT. St Anselm (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played 11 Test matches and 31 ODIs for New Zealand. Clearly notable. Paora (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her significant international career makes her notable. The gaps in her article can always be filled in. This is what we have always done with male cricketers; I hope we are not going to treat women differently.Sammyrice (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage we've got here I think there's enough to keep this, especially as it helps to redress some of the systematic bias. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Consensus is this article should be retained and, as a woman cricketer myself, I am pleased about that. The underlying issue, however, is the mass creation of what you call "stubs" by the conversion of bare statistics into a couple of sentences with no attempt to find significant coverage in sources more reliable than the databases. I have been randomly reviewing items in User:Lugnuts/Cricket and, taking those as a sample, I would think well over 50% would fall within the remit of the intention to implement a form of WP:CSD across Lugnuts' stubs.

I know I am permitted to accept consensus and close an AFD case I have opened but I need to check the process and make sure I do it right. I will come back soon and do that here. I am grateful to you all for working hard to save Jackie's article, but your work should have been done when the article was created. Laters.

Sistorian (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]