Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Karen Read

: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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:08, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

=[[:Karen Read]]=

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Karen Read}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Karen Read}})

No, not the Massachusetts woman on trial for murder (although I will admit, searching for her lead me to this stub). This article is about an Australian former cricketer. Although criteria #1 of WP:NCRICKET is technically passed because she {{tq|has played at the international level for a Test-playing nation}}, NSPORT is clear that there must always be independent WP:SIGCOV of the individual athlete. Neither player profiles on sports aggregation websites, nor an article from 1982 that talks about the entire Australian Cricket team, qualify. WP:BEFORE search did not yield any eligible coverage. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Australia. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 01:17, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2025 June 16. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 01:33, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:25, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment: Given this article's high page views (41,193 at this writing) compared to other members of the 1982 Australian women's cricket team, I don't think it's a stretch that most of those views are looking for Death of John O'Keefe instead. Should this discussion lead to deletion, creating a redirect to that article at this title might be wise, but I offer no opinion on the current article and subject (which has been on Wikipedia for about a decade before the Massachusetts murder trial even began) or its notability and sourcing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 05:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :Definitely, yes. I am quite certain that thousands of people have stumbled upon this article inadvertently. If this AfD is not successful, I will likely start a discussion on the article talk page proposing to move it to "Karen Read (cricketer)" and have the current title replaced by a redirect which leads to Death of John O'Keefe. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment given that she played in a team that won the Women's Cricket World Cup, and was given an Order of Australia award for services to cricket, I would expect there will be more sources out there, once filtering through the ones about current person of same name. Because achievements like these tend to garner non-trivial coverage. Will have a look in the next few days on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :It's interesting that you say that, because intuitively, I would not think so. I don't see why reliable secondary sources would have indepth coverage about a person just because they were on a winning rugby team in 1982 - not just about the team, but about her specifically. The same goes for the Order of Australia, as nearly 50,000 people have received it (and I highly doubt that all 50,000 of them have WP:SIGCOV). With this being said, I will gladly withdraw the nomination if someone can produce two examples of significant independent coverage. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 14:12, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ::* Reliable sources: "Captain of Western Australia's only winning Australian Championship team"
  • ::* Flipandflopped: She was just "on" the team
  • ::It's pretty usual for the captain of a championship team to get interviewed and profiled in the sports news, because the captain isn't just some random player. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Comment. In addition to what Joseph2302 has noted above, she is in the Western Australian cricket [https://www.wacricket.com.au/wa-cricket/honour-boards/gallery-of-greats-inductees Gallery of Greats] and the [https://www.wacricket.com.au/premier-cricket/history/medallists/a-grade Karen Read Medal] is awarded each year to the best A Grade player in the state. I would be utterly astounded if SIGCOV of her does not exist. But unfortunately most digitised Australian newspaper archives are very spotty between around the mid-1950s and early 1990s, and I haven't been able to find anything in any of the databases I have access to. Hoping someone else has better luck, otherwise regretfully redirect to List of Australia women Test cricketers. MCE89 (talk) 12:18, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep, no move Sources have been added to the article, and it's once again time to remind everyone that though this is the English-language Wikipedia and the servers are hosted in Florida, that doesn't mean American subjects gain primacy in article naming. The MA woman may be getting more attention now, but she has no article, and the hatnote is fulfilling the purpose as it does, and there should be no change at all and I would oppose any rename for this article just because 'MA Karen currently gets more attention'. In three years, she will likely be forgotten as most overcovered trial subjects in the States are once true crime media finds another woman's case to track. Nathannah • 📮 16:14, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :{{u|Nathannah}}, what two independent secondary sources that were added to the article pass WP:SIGCOV? There is:
  • :* {{tq|"Player Profile: Karen Read". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 26 January 2023}}. - Just a summary of her stats, exists for every cricket athlete ever. Clearly not WP:SIGCOV.
  • :* {{tq|"Player Profile: Karen Read". CricketArchive. Retrieved 26 January 2023}}. - Per above.
  • :* {{tq|"Cricket Australia congratulates 2025 Australia Day Honours recipients". Cricket Australia. 27 January 2025}}. Retrieved 16 June 2025 - Not independent of the subject, fails both WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Even if it was independent of the subject, it is a passing mention that she won an award. There is no indepth or substantive coverage of Read.
  • :* {{tq|"Australian women win final". The Sydney Morning Herald. Fairfax Media. 8 February 1982. Retrieved 25 April 2014}} - Does not significantly discuss Read as an individual besides mentioning once that she scored in a game, fails WP:SIGCOV.
  • :* {{tq|"Karen Read Medal". Western Australian Cricket Association. Retrieved 16 June 2025}} - A list of people who have won her medal. Does not significantly discuss Read as an individual beyond a single sentence. It is also not independent of the subject. It fails WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV.
  • :* {{tq|"WACA Honorary Life Members". Western Australian Cricket Association. Retrieved 16 June 2025}} - A list of people that she is on, does not discuss her and does not pass WP:SIGCOV.
  • :* {{tq|"Karen Read". Western Australian Secondary School Executives Association. Retrieved 16 June 2025}} - Not independent of the subject, not WP:SIGCOV and fails WP:BIO.
  • :* {{tq|"Dr Karen Ann READ". Australian Honours Search Facility. Retrieved 25 January 2025}} - Primary sources which contains no significant coverage; it is her C.V. posted on a government website.
  • :Respectfully, all of the above objectively fail WP:SIGCOV, and you would know that if you had read the article or even bothered to open them. Even the user who added them to the article, Joseph, acknowledged they were insufficient to pass WP:GNG as-is. I understand you resent the implication that the other Karen Read is a more notable subject, but this is WP:NOTAFORUM and I would ask you focus future contributions on whether *this article* passes WP:GNG. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 16:44, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
  • : Completely irrelevant side note: the servers that are processing our edits are actually hosted in Virginia and Texas, not Florida; the Pmtpa cluster in Florida was shutdown a decade ago. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:44, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per added sources and WP:HEY. The article has doubled in size, and the number of cited sources has doubled, since the nomination was made. Someone with access to the Trove might be able to find even more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :Just noting that I’ve checked Trove and unfortunately it doesn’t help in this case. For copyright reasons, Trove generally only contains newspapers up to 1954. The only major newspaper for which Trove covers the relevant period is The Canberra Times, where she appears in about half a dozen match reports but doesn’t get any SIGCOV. The best bet for finding SIGCOV would probably be the archives of The West Australian, but as far as I can tell only their pre-1954 and post-1995 articles have been digitised. MCE89 (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :{{u|WhatamIdoing}} Again, I would just like to politely ask which two sources, specifically, pass WP:SIGCOV or WP:NBIO. "The article has doubled" is not a policy-based rationale with regards to whether the subject matter is notable. I really hope whoever reviews this can sympathize with my frustration... none of these !votes are addressing the question of notability... "Does the subject pass WP:GNG"? FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:50, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • ::@Flipandflopped, I would just like to politely ask that you read Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process and then stop arguing with every editor who doesn't !vote your way. Four editors have expressed an opinion about whether to keep, delete, or redirect this article, and you have argued with three of us so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :::I apologize - not my intention to bludgeon, I realize it may have come off that way. FlipandFlopped ㋡ 18:41, 17 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep as sufficiently sourced to show an athlete whose noted activities go beyond their athletics. Definitely move to disambiguate the title, however. BD2412 T 19:13, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep article has been sufficiently expanded to meet the guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia.{{pb}}However, a separate Requested Move discussion should be held to potentially move this article to a disambiguator and either a) redirect the root to Death of John O'Keefe or b) establish a DAB page at Karen Read listing the cricketer, the murder page, and potentially Karen Reid. RachelTensions (talk) 19:59, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
  • it seems a consensus to keep is forming, so I apologize for making the nom - perhaps I have misinterpreted WP:NBIO and WP:SIGCOV. I would appreciate it if the closing admin would be willing to specify which sources pass WP:SIGCOV so I can understand what error I have made. If not though, that is of course also fine. Best, FlipandFlopped ㋡ 13:55, 19 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Keep per other users' rationales (such as WP:HEY), but move to Karen Read (cricketer) as the Karen A. Read from Massachusetts has received [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgnk27z504o international attention]. Free up the article for a disambig or redirect to Death of John O'Keefe (unless Karen A. Read becomes notable enough for her own Wikipedia article, which wouldn't be a surprise to me). I recognize the move discussion may need to take place elsewhere if there isn't a clear consensus here. -Ahuman00 (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
  • Do not move - I am not sure whether or not the Australian athlete is notable. However, the Australian athlete has an article, while the American involved in the Death of John O'Keefe does not. The hat note serves its purpose to direct readers to the Death of John O'Keefe. If the article should not exist, then a redirect with history intact may be made to the Death of John O'Keefe. --Jax 0677 (talk) 03:54, 22 June 2025 (UTC)
  • :Who has or doesn't have an article is explicitly irrelevant to determining PTOPIC status. But this is something for a follow-up RM to decide. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|🤷) 15:13, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.