From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 16:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

A. Bouch

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

A. Bouch (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG by a wide margin. A name in one match report is not sufficient to create a biographical article. I redirected this to List of Otago representative cricketers, as that was the suggested compromise by some cricket editors (even though it is a rather useless redirect as he is only a name on that page), but this was now reverted as "pointy". Technically meets the way too loose WP:NCRIC guidelines; as the discussions at WT:NSPORTS showed, there is no consensus on a new NCRIC guideline, but most editors agree that the current one is not acceptable and/or that meeting NCRIC isn't sufficient if meeting the WP:GNG can't be established. Fram ( talk) 13:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 13:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Meets N:CRIC. After a failed RfC, Fram is now trying to make his WP:POINT with wide-scale WP:DE across the project. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Lugnuts, can you please link me to this RfC? I'm not au fait with the RfC-RfArb area. Bobo . 13:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Yep - Here is Fram's failed RfC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - Note that I myself have been pro-lists all along, purely as a means of navigation, even though you would assume I would be the most against the idea of anyone. It seems counter-intuitive that the very people who have been saying "no like, get rid", have also been saying, "we need players' navigational lists", having been against them for so long. Bobo . 13:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
There's also the mass redirecting done by Fram with the rationale of "no evidence found of actual notability" across batches of a dozen or more articles in as many minutes. What WP:BEFORE work has been done? Zero. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:28, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
I think I posted about two weeks ago that the conversation hadn't been "closed" in spite of there having been no interaction for that long. It's been 16 days now. I think "moribund" is the word. Very few people were in support of this proposal and even fewer are active in WP:CRIC themselves. Bobo . 13:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
If I hadn't done WP:BEFORE, I couldn't have done this or this, as you are well aware (having edited that latter one just 27 minutes after my expansion). Today, I redirected 12 articles (and skipped as many, and expanded one) in 30 minutes. Last week, I redirected 5 (and expanded one) in 23 minutes. Today, you created 7 cricket articles in 31 minutes. So please spare me the preaching of going too fast. Fram ( talk) 13:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
So this is an exercise in number of articles and selective deletionism. Interesting. I don't know why people claim this project is so big it is "unmanageable". Many of the Ranji Trophy cricket articles I have created haven't/hadn't been updated in their mainbody content for 15 years. This seems to be well "managed" to me. Bobo . 13:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
And yet you still insist you have "no beef" with me, despite WP:HOUNDING me. One token expansion, ha don't make me laugh. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Bobo192, I don't know who you are discussing here, but I don't think I have ever taken a position against player's lists. Fram ( talk) 13:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Absolutely not yourself, Fram, don't worry. Just that every time we used to bring it up as an idea, it was seen as unnecessary, although right now it's what everyone is clamouring for. Bobo . 13:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
Fram, The amusing thing is when I was the one to suggest lists as an alternative to stand-along microstubs I got heckled and attacked relentlessly for it by the usual suspects. Isn't it funny how a suggestion that made me the target of personal abuse when it was "that or keep" suddenly becomes a fantastic idea when consensus has swung to "that or delete". Reyk YO! 11:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. This is a selectively edited match report masquerading as a biography. NCRIC is only a presumption of GNG pass, and that presumption has been consistently shown to be near worthless for domestic cricketers with few appearances. Consensus in successive discussions is that NCRIC alone is not justification for a standalones article, and there is clear consensus to redirect articles such as this that fail GNG and SPORTBASIC. There have been countless AFDs (and other discussions) over the past few years to confirm this, and for individuals to persistently defy that consensus and revert such redirects is plainly disruptive (by resulting in this unnecessary discussion) unless substantial sources are provided. wjemather please leave a message... 13:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    There have also been multiple AfDs by Fram and his ilk where the discussion ended in Keep, meaning the initial redirect itself was disruptive. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    I don't know or care who you consider "my ilk", but these are the cricket AfDs I started (feel free to add any I started which I missed)
    So perhaps you could redact your comment about who is disruptive here? Fram ( talk) 13:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    No, the initial redirect was fully supported by consensus from countless discussions and AFDs. The WP:POINTy reverts are disruptive. wjemather please leave a message... 13:41, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    There was no consensus to do that at Fram's failed RfC either for redirects. Clearly trying to make a WP:POINT after that went south. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:44, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
    The RFC was not about redirects. Are you seriously going to continue protesting (and disrupting wikipedia) by insisting that all these articles go through AFD just to make a point? Or are you going to accept consensus established over the past few years and allow redirects to be made where appropriate? wjemather please leave a message... 13:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
That's what people appear to be all too keen to happen anyway, all these articles to go through AfD.... Bobo . 13:52, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - please forgive me for my third comment even though it is my usual one. At least an article for Otago representative cricketers exists. These need to exist for every first-class team - within usual bounds of logic. Bobo . 13:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per Lugnuts. CreativeNorth ( talk) 13:39, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect. to List of Otago representative cricketers. No indication at all that he's notable, even if we knew a little more about him. Nigej ( talk) 14:08, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now. Absolutely agree with what Lugnuts has said regarding DE. Sammyrice, do you have any info on this player? If no further info can be found then redirect to a list. StickyWicket ( talk) 16:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect per above. As eloquently stated by Wjemather this article (and so many others) is a selectively edited match report masquerading as a biography. Our sourcing and notability requirements don't support such database scrapes. Predictably the conversation has moved to personal attacks and erroneous accusations against the nominator. Reyk YO! 12:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is not cricketpedia. It is time that we stop bowing to obstructionists who want to keep fluff. The sourcing here is not enough to establish notability for this person so we should delete. It is up to article creators to provide enough information to establish notability, which has absolutely not been done here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:35, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I don't think Wikipedia should be filled with non-notable cricketers. My second preference is redirect. WilliamSpeare ( talk) 20:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. There has been a general consensus over the last three or four years that this is a suitable alternative to deletion - information occasionally surfaces to identify these sorts of people. Fwiw I think I'd have started a merge discussion if the redirect was reverted - and I'm surprised this one was. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 12:11, 23 January 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/A._Bouch&oldid=1101600977"