Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Kidd (cricketer)

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|Matthew Kidd (cricketer)}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Matthew Kidd (cricketer)}})

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm (talk) 17:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

:Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
• Soft keep - He's played first-class cricket so he's automatically notable. Needs more sources though. – PeeJay 16:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• :The cricket SNG criterion is "highest domestic level" – regardless of the status afforded individual matches, university cricket (especially at this time) falls below this standard. As such, this fails NCRIC and he does not get the weak presumption (not guarantee) of notability offered by it. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:49, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
• Keep - he has played first class cricket, which is the key element in WP:CRIN along with List A matches. Note that WP:GNG is erroneously referred to above by Rondolinda; GNG is not being relied on for the importance of this article. There are many matches played at first class level which are not county championship, but which are included in first class players' statistics, and which qualify for notability. To take Wjemather's point, a correct reading of WP:CRIN is that all first class and List players are automatically notable, and some players who have not played first class cricket may also be notable if they played in matches before 1947, as those 'important matches' may not have been designated as first class. Note that WP:CRIN states definitively that a first class match is an important match. DevaCat1 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players Has played 2 FC matches, but no coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

• Keep Has played in first-class matches so meets the notability criteria. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete or redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. No WP:SIGCOV; only wide-ranging databases, scorecards, etc. In fact fails all notability criteria including the very weak NCRIC; per my above comment, there is no automatic first-class—highest-level equivalence here. It should be noted that such matches no longer have first-class status as a result of this long-standing paradox. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete not even close to meeting the GNG which is the standard all articles must meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete: In his cricket career, he played only two first class matches as a bowler, he picked only one wicket and his bowling average was 154 which is not good. Non-notable bowler. TheDreamBoat (talk) 08:50, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

• Delete the only coverage of him that's not a directory entry is a single sentence in a match report. Definitively fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 00:24, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage. There aren't sufficient source to write a biography, nor will there ever be. WP:WHYN explains we require significant coverage "so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page..." ----Pontificalibus 16:21, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Oxford UCCE & MCCU players. No objections to this. StickyWicket (talk) 15:02, 18 March 2021 (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.