Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Davies (cricketer, born 1959)

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. The consensus here is clear. Not all may agree with WP:CRIN but this isn't the place to debate it. J04n(talk page) 14:05, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Davies (cricketer, born 1959)

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

Surely this is not a notable sportsman? By any reasonable yardstick he really can't be? I'm sure he's a decent bloke, but notable? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. czar · · 16:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First-class cricketer, therefore fulfils WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. Johnlp (talk) 16:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First-class cricketers meet the criteria for inclusion as per WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:21, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he clearly fulfils the notability criteria. JH (talk page) 17:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close. No policy based rationale given by the nom for deletion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:43, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - he's hardly a first-class cricketer if he was bowled-out for a duck in his first and only game. I really don't see why such a marginal thing should pass notability. And this guy very blatantly fails WP:GNG. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the notability requirements for cricketers are ridiculously low. Guys who play 1 or 2 matches, unsuccessfully, perhaps only against Oxford or Cambridge, suggests that the policy is wrong. How about 10 matches as an arbitrary cutoff? Barney the barney barney (talk) 21:39, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If we are to have an arbitrary cutoff, one is better than ten IMO. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 1 match does not a career make. We should write about people with cricketing careers, not good club cricketers who happened to play once or twice against the Oxbridge universities because the team were short on players and they went to the same school as the coach (or whatever). The resulting article is completely biased against their real life career as a postman or schoolteacher or whatever they actually did in real life. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:01, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Which players with "cricketing careers" do you have in mind, Barney? This is why there are such things as notability criteria, so that there is an easy way to establish which players are eligible for articles and which aren't. And if you have a citation that the team were "short on players" at the time, please offer it to the article. This constant re-hashing of the "should we change notability standards for cricket articles, against the flow of the rest of the encyclopedia's guidelines", is one of the reasons I don't contribute any longer. Bobo . 07:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is off-topic. Please restrict discussion to whether Mark Davies meets the notability criteria. If you want to talk about what the notability criteria ought to be, please head over to WP:Cricket and make your case there. Dricherby (talk) 09:14, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment " he's hardly a first-class cricketer"... umm well evidently he was. We've been through the notability discussion countless times. First-class, be it one appearance for 100, is first-class, hence the player gets included to create a full history. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 23:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep: meets WP:CRIN. This is not the place to discuss whether the notability criteria for cricket are reasonable but they're comparable with other sports (at least one appearance in a major professional league). Dricherby (talk) 23:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Barney, the notability requirements for cricket-playing individuals are the same as for any other sport. Would you disagree with the "single game" cutoff in... baseball? Gridiron? Ice hockey? Soccer? Bobo. 00:48, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Barney the barney barney (talk) 08:39, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then where would you put the cutoff? A problem still exists until a solution is formulated. Bobo. 13:30, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is irrelevant. Please stay on-topic. Dricherby (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't actually see it as irrelevant, where people are questioning well-established WP:BIO criteria - the whole point of WP:BIO criteria is that they are the yardstick by which we measure whether articles should stay or go. Bobo . 07:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        It is irrelevant because the purpose of AfD is to measure the article against the yardstick, not to discuss whether we should go out and get a new yardstick. Dricherby (talk) 08:57, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep – Meets notability criteria —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 14:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTEVERYTHING. WP:ITEXISTS is not a valid keep argument. We do not need this. Barney the barney barney (talk) 09:02, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NOTABILITY, right in the lead: "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". Please stop trying to make your point about sport notability criteria here. Dricherby (talk) 09:34, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep one needs to keep in mind that first-class cricket is the pinnacle of non-international cricket, not the first rung. Many players with only one or two matches have extensive careers in minor counties and high-level club cricket, or coaching etc. making the first-class appearance criteria of the notability guideline not such an extreme requirement. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I've now expanded it a bit and set my vote to Keep. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:15, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:CRIN. — Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:05, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There has to be some threshold as to when a player becomes notable. I would certainly accept that regular members of the first XI are notable, but I find it hard to justify a person being notable for having played just twice in the 1st team. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

... and that threshold has been set, by consensus, at one match, by WP:CRIN. Dricherby (talk) 15:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- There already is a threshold. At what point does a member of the first XI become "regular"? There's no threshold for that, for certain - where would you put that yardstick? Bobo. 17:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well it's clear that 1 and a half appearances isn't regular. The argument so far seems to be "it's too difficult to set a threshold so we'll set it as low as possible and ignore the inevitable consequence that resultant biographies are completely unbalanced and uninteresting", and rather than building cross-community consensus, we'll gang together in a Wikiproject and vote en mass to keep everything. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's very easy to set a threshold, and as a result, it's very easy to decide whether or not that threshold is reached. That's why the threshold was decided upon, and that's why it remains the yardstick by which we work on not only the cricket Wikiproject, but the soccer Wikiproject and almost any other sports project I can think of. If we restrict it simply to "value judgements", everyone is going to start having different inclusion criteria, and that's absolutely not in the spirit of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia or reference work. Bobo . 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Barney the barney barney, as you contribute diddly squat to the cricket project, perhaps you should save your energy for something you do contribute toward??? Idea much? Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that he has contributed an opinion, something he is entitled to. With regard to altering the inclusion hurdle, this is plainly the wrong place. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, there are regular contributors to the cricket project who have argued against the single-match criterion. But it is the least arbitrary figure, the easiest to enforce and it accords with other team sports. By all means bring it up at the WT:CRIC page. But if you're arguing that out of all the players who've been ruled notable after one or two appearances we should make an exception of this one, then your logic escapes me. The battle, should you wish to fight it, should be at WT:CRIC. And it's been lost there before. Johnlp (talk) 22:44, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Johnlp as right. This is not the place to change policy. We will have to act in accordance with policy as it stands now, and if you wish re-open the debate at WT:CRIC. If the cut off was set at 10, or 5, or 3, we would be having the exact same discussion about the validity of that I suspect. And what's the crime of having 1 FC match as the criteria? There's no lack of space! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 07:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:CRIN, the relevant subject-specific guideline as per the italicised text in the lead at WP:GNG - A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right.

. Hack (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it. Barney notwithstanding, everyone here seems to be in agreement that the policy clearly supports inclusion of this. Ducknish (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2013 (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.