Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Borton

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. After improvement, consensus is now to keep, including at least 1 of the former delete !votes changing to keep. (non-admin closure) Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:32, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Borton

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

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

One of many cricket articles that fail WP:GNG big time. After four other AfDs on cricket players I started ended all in "redirect" (1 2 3), 4), I redirected some other articles with the same lack of individual notability. This was reverted for being "pointy disruption" by the article creator. So I'll nominate them for AfD instead, with no objection from my side to either deletion or redirection. I nominate them individually, as it may turn out that, despite my searches for sources, some of these can be shown to be actually notable. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 13:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NCRIC. The nom made a recent failed RfC to remove the said notability requirements. Since then, they have tried to circumnavigate this by making mass redirects instead. The nom has said that they "have no beef with Lugnuts", however following their failed RfC, have seemingly gone out of their way to target artciles I've worked on. Another RfC on sporting articles closed with the comments "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". And yet, there have been 25+ AfDs logged by Fram in a 15/20 minute window, indicating no WP:BEFORE was used. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- For my reply, see here. Fram (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no qualms in creating them, as they meet the notability criteria, which you tried and failed to get rid of. And this is the issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Nominator didn't do a WP:BEFORE to show the opposite. The nominator nominated (automatically) a large amount of cricketeers. It would have been better to made a bunch of them in one nomination. SportsOlympic (talk) 15:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- You have posted the same incorrect claims about me (which are not relevant to keeping or deleting this article anyway) at all these AfDs. I hope you will be kind enough to take into account my answer at one of them[1] and correct all your statements accordingly. Fram (talk) 16:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, two matches simply doesn't cut it though meeting a project-specific guideline, neither in association football or cricket. There are 100+ precedent discussions that point to this. See this and countless others. Geschichte (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Fails WP:GNG, to which NCRIC defers. The sourcing beyond database scrapes of statistics isn't available. Meeting a very low-quality SNG does not provide an exemption from sourcing requirements, especially when said SNG is demonstrably awful at predicting which articles will eventually be shown to meet notability requirements. Predictably, the conversation has moved to personal attacks on the nominator. A redirect to a list of Otago cricketers remains possible, but not a stand-alone article. Reyk _YO! 11:32, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty on this chap on archives, enough to expand and make an interesting biography of a very early New Zealand cricketer. Meets WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 15:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Any actual evidence for this claim? I've checked the "paperspast", and all I can find is a "help wanted" ad which may be by him, but is a primary source in any case. Some passing mentions in unreliable sources (personal webpages, a thesis) may or may not be referring to him: none of these sources have anything indepth. Fram (talk) 15:40, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- E.g. this addition, what's the reliable source for this? You shouldn't add categories which aren't also in the article and supported by sources. Showing actual, good sources would strengthen the claims that he is indeed notable. Fram (talk) 15:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You nominate, you look. I've looked, but I'm not doing work you should have already done, which given the mass nomination of dozens of articles, you didn't. StickyWicket (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- That's ... not acceptable, really. You make claims that there are plenty of sources, but refuse to show them. You make additions to the article, but refuse to source these as well? People often use "disruptive editing" in a very loose way, but this is actual WP:DE. This basically makes all your votes in these AfDs invalid, as we can't trust anything you claim in them. Fram (talk) 16:04, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Honestly, this work should have been done before making the article. Reyk _YO! 16:58, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ESD19240308.2.97 is about as detailed as I can find but is nothing like enough to demonstrate notability. Nigej (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:20, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him in my searches. WP:ATD is redirect. Störm (talk) 21:38, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've added some referenced material on him. A point of particular notability is that he played in the first two first-class matches in New Zealand to be contested entirely by New Zealand players: the single previous game in New Zealand that is recognised as first-class was won principally by Australian "ringers" on the Otago side. Johnlp (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Notability is not inherited. Even if these matches would be more notable for that reason (which is not really clear at all, and that particular claim unreferenced), it doesn't make the players in it more notable. That this claim to notability doesn't seem to have been remarked upon anywhere is an indication of its lack of importance. Fram (talk) 08:23, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Recently added material demonstrates notability. Sammyrice (talk) 23:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sammy! Maybe the deletion !voters could take stock and revisit. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:06, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG now after expansion. Störm (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets GNG level of sourcing now. This is one reason why I consistently argue redirect rather than delete when a suitable target exists. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Paora (talk) 09:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think that for historical figures like the subject of this article guidelines like WP:NCRIC are rather ill-suited, and one should generally look to WP:GNG and WP:BIO in these types of cases. However, here the recent additions of sources and improvements to the article show that WP:GNG and WP:BIO are amply met. Nsk92 (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StickyWicket. Moonraker (talk) 18:09, 30 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.