Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Meston

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Meston

[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. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Sistorian (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine my surprise when, after having discovered prose in another nomination made alongside this one, when I found prose in the “database source” used as a source here. It’s not exactly common and I was genuinely surprised to find two AfD in a row where, as a result of that prose, the nomination is invalid. In this case it’s an obituary from The Cricketer. I suspect a Wisden obituary and other prose sources will also exist. I’ll, obviously, see what I can find at some point but will struggle to do so given the number of cricket AfD which have been nominated in the last 36 hours. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wisden obit is just a shallow blurb. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ESPN paragraph is another example of statistics put into words, as is the case with the John West article. It adds nothing of value to the brief information already in the article, except perhaps that Meston was an amateur player. I cannot say if that is important or not.

Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to that this user claims to have one month's experience on here, having created zero articles, then all of a sudden magically appears nominating articles like a pro at AfD. I doubt they are a new user, through their deletion nom of a female international cricketer is pretty ironic considering their userpage blurb. StickyWicket (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:AssociateAffiliate. In the words of Michelle Madow: "Everyone has to start somewhere. If you let people bring you down now, you'll never know how high you could climb. And you owe it to yourself to try".

I am not aware of any requirement to create articles before venturing into AFD. I have followed the WP:AFDHOWTO and Twinkle instructions very carefully. These are clear and well written so, as (I think) I am fairly bright, I have been able to place my first few entries. I have not, however, had the confidence to try a WP:MULTIAFD yet, which would perhaps have been the ideal way to present the Meston/Greene/West cases. I will make sure I can manage individual entries first and then try a multiple one someday.

As for nominating two female cricketers, their articles lack significant coverage and I am not a feminist, let alone a militant feminist, so I fail to see any irony. You refer to my "userpage blurb" and, yes, I am a woman and a lesbian and an environmentalist and many other things. If you have any problems with those, then I am sorry but they are me and I doubt if I will ever change. Do please reconsider your decision to retire, however, because something like this can hardly be worth getting steamed up about.

Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a crack at looking for sources about him. Looking for Sam Meston and Samuel Meston on the British Newspaper Archive mostly just turned up sources on the footballer of the same name. On Newspapers.com, these obituaries are the best I found[1][2]. The rest seemed to be mostly match reports though I might have missed something. Alvaldi (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC and by extension WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting NCRIC certainly does not mean that a subject meets GNG by extension. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StickyWicket. Sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE just has to be applied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources which have been added are either short blurbs or brief mentions of Meston in the context of a match recap and do not demonstrate significant coverage sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources above, including the Wisden obit I found, are essentially proseified stats or mentions in routine match recaps. Not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Personally feel there's just enough about enough here, with what then likely exists offline for a GNG pass here given his career was in a time of offline media. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and keep - Deleting County Championship players is an odd course of action. The Cricket Wikiproject is more than able and willing to find sources if you feel they are necessary. To send to AfD before finding out whether more information can be found saves people from leaving premature delete !votes. I'm always impressed by what is available and can be accessed on newspaper archives. Bobo . 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources added are all significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and so the subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. St Anselm (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2022 (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.