Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer)

:{{la|R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer)}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/R._Whitehead_(MCC_cricketer) Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer)}})

Not notable; not even the individuals first name is known. WP:CRIN only refers to players in Test matches after 1877. Power~enwiki (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

{{ctop|I've struck part of my nominating statement. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)}}

::Question for Power~enwiki. Where does it say in WP:CRIN that it "only refers to players in Test matches after 1877"? I suggest that you read it again, then have another look at the article which has been expanded today, and then ask yourself if this nomination was one of your better edits. Please exercise care when assessing policies and guidelines or you end up wasting other people's time. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

::: "men's and women's cricket having equal importance, to qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia: has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international", followed by "The substantial source qualification includes any player or umpire (both men and women) who has appeared in a Test match since 1877". Power~enwiki (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

::::Try reading the entire sentence after "since 1877;" and you should be able to see that it says rather more than you appear to think it does. Don't you understand semi-colons? I can't decide if this is wilful disruption so let's have a full explanation for your time-wasting. Jack | ^{talk page} 03:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::::: Will you please assume good faith? Power~enwiki (talk) 05:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::::::Note. This discussion has been taken to nominator's own talk page. Jack | ^{talk page} 05:34, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::::::: To attempt to clarify for other readers: while the terms "test cricket" and "first-class cricket" don't apply before the mid-1800s, the notability rules related to them do apply at WP:CRIN. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

{{cbot}}

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Delete- biographical article about a non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known. I think it goes without saying that WP:CRIN is way too lax in its standards if it encourages the creation of a horde of contentless microstubs like this one. I could support a merge to a suitable list article, if there is one. Reyk _YO! 06:09, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep unlike at the other cricket AfD at the moment, this is where I think that WP:CRIN is absolutely applicable. Amongst his appearances, Whitehead made a number of appearances for an "England" side. While that bears no resemblance to what we call the England cricket team now, it means he would most certainly have been a notable cricketer of the time. The fact that he played during the 18th century, when we have very limited sources, means that we have limited information (including, as noted, not even a first name). However, there is no doubt in my mind that this player is notable. Can the article be improved to better show that? Sure. Harrias ^talk 09:16, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep. As Harrias rightly points out, this is a stub with plenty of scope for expansion. Whitehead was both a player with several first-class appearances and a significant match organiser. Okay, we don't know his first name (yet). So what? Jack | ^{talk page} 11:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

::Update. And to prove the point, the article has been expanded somewhat with plenty of additional citations taken from impeccable book sources to provide a more complete summary of Mr Whitehead's career. I could go much further but this will do for now. I'm glad Harrias pointed out that sources from the 18th (and, indeed, much of the 19th) century are limited. In that context, we can do without ignorant comments like "non-notable sports person, based on bare statistical database entries and sources so meagre that the person's full name is not even known". There's always one, of course. It was common practice in 18th century newspapers to name someone as "Mr R. Whitehead" and not use a first name. We are lucky he was one of the so-called gentry or we might not even have an initial. This convention presents problems for modern researchers which any credible editor should readily acknowledge. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:46, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Not going to turn this into some petty little drama. Just stating one simple thing. We either define a level at which cricketers are notable and stick to it, or we don't. To make petty case-by-case exceptions without legitimate and universal statistical justification just because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, is pointless and, as we are now finding out, a waste of time unless something is done about it. Want to alter WP:CRIN? Individual AfDs are not the place to attempt to alter WP:CRIN criteria. The fact that WP:CRIN criteria are *painfully* easy to understand and implement is making this whole business a joke. Bobo. 16:17, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• I disagree that they are easy to understand. The specific sentence "Hence, a player who represented Kent in the earliest known inter-county match in 1709 is as notable as a player who represented Kent's first team in any recent County Championship season." is clear, though. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep as passes WP:CRICN. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment as nom the page clearly meets WP:CRIN now. This can probably be SNOW closed as keep. Power~enwiki (talk) 05:49, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment on closing unless {{u|Reyk}} changes their mind, this should not be closed as SNOW, or nominator withdrawal, as there is reasonable (if minimal) opposition. Harrias ^talk 06:56, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• After reading Jack's extraordinary bad faith tirade against me, I no longer care what you people do and I'd prefer to be left alone. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::Reyk, this goes deeper than some childish temper tantrum. Existence of AfD pages such as those relating to S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) which have been sent to AfD, when even a child can understand they meet notability criteria (the fact that I've demonstrably proven that the two basic notability guidelines contradict each other is by the by), prove that those who disagree with WP:CRIN for the sake of it simply have too much time on their hands. Either all FC cricketers are notable, or none are. That is the only way to ensure unbiased NPOV.

::Oh, and I promised not to turn this into some petty childish drama... ;) Please don't bait me or others in the future. People like sulking about that kind of thing. Bobo. 08:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:::Bobo, my underlying concern about the WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade is that they contravene WP:NOTHERE and should not be here at all. Their purpose is not to build the encyclopaedia but to impede those who do, which is both disruptive and bad faith. They need to take on board that we readily support deletion of cricket articles that don't meet CRIN, as per the u-19 one raised a day or two ago by User:Lugnuts. Hope you're okay, btw, Bobo. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:28, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::::Thank you Jack. I am well. Smiley face. (Sorry, back on topic now. :D ) Bobo. 08:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:::I don't criticise CRIN just for the sake of it. I'm generally wary of notability guidelines that allow database entries to be inflated to full articles. This is because turning an Excel cell into prose can inadvertently introduce errors, such as asserting a player is retired (or still living) when you've no idea if they are ir not. And as I proved in the Perera AfD statistical aggregators can be ambiguous about if it's one player appearing for two teams, or two similarly named people. These are potential BLP nightmares. Finally, I think stats entries are best presented as lists, which don't dilute minimal content over a multitude of articles and also protect against the trap of saying more than the sources do. You might not agree, but it is not fair to dismiss my views as "petty". Yet you accuse me of baiting you. Astonishing. And, Jack, if you think I'm NOTHERE, go to ANI and seek a block. Otherwise, both of you leave me alone. Reyk _YO! 09:14, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::::Don't bait us for the sake of it, Reyk, you're not being as funny as you think you are. Bobo. 09:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:::::I am not baiting anyone or trying to be funny, and I'm not sure how you've gotten that impression. I am being completely sincere. Reyk _YO! 09:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:::: BLP (Living persons) isn't relevant here. Your concerns with the article are sufficient clear; I will not be withdrawing this AfD. Power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:21, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Comment - Jack, are you the original author/curator of WP:CRIN? How long has this lasted without having been argued with on this petty a level? Bobo. 08:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::Hello, Bobo, our messages crossed then. I'm the main author of CRIN, yes, and it only gets updated if someone points out an ambiguity or if some new feature arises that it needs to encompass. We try to be proactive and, of course, we take on board constructive criticism, most of which comes from within CRIC itself. For example, I've amended it this morning because of the CA subs situation – no point specifying a site that only a handful of us can use nowadays. As regards player notability, it hasn't changed in a decade: anyone who has played top-level domestic cricket in an ICC Full Member country is notable. Simple as that. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:::I cannot think of a single instance of "constructive criticism" when having come up against an individual who clearly meets WP:CRIN criteria. But then we've never had to argue over such petty things as this and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) before.. ;) Bobo. 08:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:::Rereading S. Perera's AfD debate over again makes me chortle. When weight is given to arguments including those from IP addresses, renamed - and later blocked - proven sockpuppet accounts... and an article is therefore deleted based on undefined "rules of thumb" and the lack of "basic details" - when the article so painfully obviously passes WP:CRIN criteria... there exists only a single legitimate delete !vote in that AfD debate... If I weren't so disgusted by the actions of the last month or so, I would be prepared to take it to WP:RFU on these grounds. Bobo. 09:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

:::Note how something as idiotically woolly and contradictory as WP:GNG didn't exist back then as an apparently legitimate delete vote criterion... Bobo. 10:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per all the above, and the excellent expansion work since being brought to AfD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - interestingly, the striking that PowerEn-Wiki has just done to his original AfD nomination statement, has completely invalidated the purpose of his sending the article to AfD in the first place - which anyone who knows a single thing about cricket knows was on spurious grounds anyway. Now it simply reads, "Please get rid of this article. We do not know this man's first name. Therefore he is not notable." An opinion seemingly shared by Reyk... Bobo. 18:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - {{ping|BlackJack}} - please forgive me for switching topics but this is the most expedient way to do so - have you seen the link to S. Perera's AfD debate that I posted above? What say you? On the basis that the debate only contains one legitimate delete vote... worth taking to WP:RFU? Bobo. 18:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

::Hello again, Bobo. I'd say you have a strong case. Which one is the legitimate voter and were the others all socks? Let me know if it goes to RFU. Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:08, 14 September 2017 (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.