Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John West (cricketer, born 1861)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 August 11.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 delete. It is not substantially contested here that the kind of sources required by WP:GNG have not been found after two weeks of searching. That being the case, the "keep" opinions are so weak that they have to be discounted: they use arguments now rejected by community consensus, i.e., that playing at a certain level of sports automatically establishes notability. A redirect closure per WP:ATD is also not possible because nobody has proposed a redirect target. Sandstein 08:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John West (cricketer, born 1861)

[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)

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The “database source” in this case contains a significant prose discussion of West’s career - likely his Wisden obituary. This is often the case with Middlesex players and demonstrates clearly that anyone nominating articles sourced to CricInfo needs to click the link to check. As a result there is suitable coverage already and that’s before we go and look in a range of other places such as Middlesex histories. The nomination is, unfortunately, not using a valid rationale in this case. Shame that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a number of passing mentions - for example, one on the Notts website - and some details appear in an paper in Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 15/1 by Keith Sandiford titled Amateurs and Professionals in Victorian County Cricket. Unfortunately I don't have access, but the snippet available in a google search suggests that there's a bit more detail there as well. He also appears mentioned several times in Cricket magazine and in an edition of Wisden, some of which is available online. This suggests that there will be more in other editions of Wisden. I imagine there's enough if someone has the time to suggest quite strongly that this passes WP:BASIC levels of sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, the Cricinfo discussion is anything but significant because it is simply statistics dressed in prose clothing. The only non-statistical information it provides, other than what is already in the article, is West having been on the MCC ground staff, which is hardly significant. I presume you could add the statistical information to the information box, as seems to be the usual practice. If you intend to expand the article using statistics only, albeit in prose form, then I do not think that will comply with WP:NOT (in the section labelled WP:NOTSTATS) and the article will still lack significant coverage because "multiple sources are generally expected".

If there is more information in histories of the Middlesex club then by all means include it. As I understand things, though, the article must cite reliable sources and cannot be left in a "before we go and look" scenario. I am still new to this, I must point out, so please explain if I am misunderstanding the process in any way. Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination says The sole source is a statistical database only. That is patently not the case. Not only have you not looked to check if there are any other sources about West - which is strongly encouraged - you haven't checked the source which was in the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It patently is the case when the half a dozen lines of prose consist almost entirely of statistics with words between the numbers. The case is well put by User:Wjemather below. The coverage is brief to the point of insignificance.

With all six of the articles I have nominated, I carried out a Google search and found nothing except Wikipedia, its mirrors, sources already in the article like ESPN, and other statistical sites which do not seem reliable. You have said before that there may be content in Middlesex club histories but I do not have access to such books. As I understand the significant coverage requirement, there must be multiple reliable sources and they must be cited in the article. Please do not assume I have not checked Google or the ESPN article. I assure you I have.

Sistorian (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think if the first thing a new editor does is add six articles for deletion, they think something needs fixing with the project which they don't understand will take more than a batch-add of deletion discussions. There are better ways to handle content than adding everything that displeases you, as a new editor, to AfD. There are issues here which date back years, not just a month since you discovered the site and became au fait uncharacteristically quickly with deletion discussions and ArbCom cases. Bobo . 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. So playing in 86 first-class matches at the highest domestic level isn't considered notable? Right. Meets WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Isn't is also curious how someone with a month's history on here seems to be so involved with the AfD process... StickyWicket (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable if someone took significant note, if not then unfortunately no. That said, the British Newspaper Archive might have something on him. I took a brief look at this yesterday and mostly found information about another cricketer by the same name. I'll take another look at this tonight and see if I can't find something with a refined search. Alvaldi (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StickyWicket. Sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE just has to be applied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and procedural keep on the grounds that I have no idea what is in Wisden to add to the article, although those who have access presumably do. I believe issues like this need to be raised on WT:CRIC before adding to AfD on the spur of the moment. Bobo . 11:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the honesty, but asserting that you "have no idea" if there is anything worthwhile in possible sources is not a convincing argument. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had access to Wisden from somewhere, as I say, if you have access, feel free to add, otherwise really telling me that I'm wrong in giving others impetus to help out is counterproductve. My main point was that these issues are not taken to WT:CRIC first and need to be otherwise we get half a dozen delete votes from people who have nothing to contribute, and a fair number of contributions to the article in the interim... but that's happened many times and won't stop in a hurry. Bobo . 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As already indicated by BST, it would seem clear that the Cricinfo profile contains the entirety of the Wisden obit; since it does little more than summarise his statistics, it barely reaches the threshold of significant coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For someone who played that number of games, and umpired an official test it is highly likely that GNG passing sourcing exists. His name is particularly common, obviously with tuna, other cricketers and other umpires in other sports so searching is difficult, but with what we have and what we know I imagine there will be GNG passing sourcing out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked into this some more and slept on it, I think there's a really interesting story here, but it's going to take some serious work to unpick all the strands and piece together all the pieces - at least two or three days worth of work and picking through newspapers and so on. And that's without access to old and expensive Wisdens. I will, hopefully, find time to do that work, but it won't happen for days if not a few weeks and it'll be quicker if nothing else comes up that is a higher priority. For that reason I'd rather keep the article for now at least. If the story doesn't pan out the way I think it will then it'll be obvious in six months time I guess. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Currently, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, as well as being a WP:NOTDATABASE violation. Normally, this would warrant deletion, but since Blue Square Thing believes they can improve the article, given sufficient time, I believe draftification would be a suitable compromise; either they can improve the article and it is returned to article space, or they can't and we don't need to waste our time with a second AfD in six months. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There wouldn't be a second AfD. I'd redirect it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting by request. I'll let another admin close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I never found any SIGCOV on him in the British Newspaper Archive, perhabs I gave up to soon as there are ALOT of articles of people with the same name. This message board is the best I found. Of course, it can´t be used as a source but someone there did have better luck of finding some information on him so maybe someone here can use it to help narrow their searches. Alvaldi (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's in Wisden plenty of times, the problem is getting access to really old (and expensive) Wisdens. Note that I would suggest very strongly that drafting this article is completely against a long-term consensus at AfD which has been established since at least 2018 to redirect if nothing can be found. I think in this case there is so much evidence of sources existing that there's an argument for keeping, at least for a period of time, but would much prefer a redirect to drafting. If it's drafted it won't get worked on (I can absolutely guarantee that I won't work on it) and will be deleted in six months. If it's redirected it may get worked on, we retain the attribution and source history and we retain the links to and from lists etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing Redirecting it is also fine by me. Alvaldi (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there hasn't been a single delete !vote on this article and the nomination was by a sock-puppet. Was deletion review even mentioned at the time? Deletion review only gave us one !vote to relist. Was re-listing really necessary? As we've said, there's a lot ot unpick that we won't get done overnight. Bobo . 08:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How about you source this instead of obsessing over process. You do have a source don’t you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically I probably care less for process than almost anyone else. "Process" gets in our way of achieving our goal. Unfortunately, as a project, we have reached an impasse as regards what that goal is. Some of us think the project should be horizontal, some of us think the project should be vertical, and in many cases, ne'er the twain... Bobo . 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t make needless procedural objections if you don’t consider process important unless you want to be accused of process wonkery. There is no impasse, there was a massive fuck off RFC that set a standard. Folks just arguing contrary are being disruptive and clearly throwing sand into the gears to slow down the inevitable cleanup. There was an arbitration request that reinforced the risks of that behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we were working to the same goal, no "process" would be needed. And an "inevitable" clean-up which will not happen without the mass-deletion of dozens of articles of players with scores of appearances, contrary to the goals of the project. A tragic indication of what we have become. Bobo . 19:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make my point perfectly. Firstly you put the aims of your wikiproject ahead of the expressed desire of the community and a settled community consensus and then you have the effrontery to assume that I am working to different goals then you. Next you will be applying some silly label as a way of making it ok to ignore an opinion reflecting community consensus. Classy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the keep votes are based on policy established at an extremely well attended RFC that requires sports bios to have at least a single decent reliable source. As Noted cricinfo is a sports database (a bloody brilliant one) but turning statistics into propose is not an RS. The closing admin should note that there is an entrenched WP:Cricket contingent voting here who are clearly opposed to the will of the community but have singularly failed to provide the required source. wiki projects do not have the right to stick two fingers up to the community and force through non policy based outcomes by making frankly risable non policy based arguments. If the sourcing is not provided then the policy based outcome is delete although personally I think its high time lists of cricketers by team and period were created for these articles so we can simoly redirect them until the sources are found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Per the arguments from BST, BM, Alvaldi, and Spartaz. I agree that SIG sourcing needs to be shown to exist, but that redirection is viable until then. JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines are quite clear that a source that fails NSPORT but passes GNG can and should be kept. Some keep !voters are asserting the subject passes GNG (not NSPORT) which would be grounds for keeping regardless of the RFC, but I'd like to see some actual evidence of that if I'm going to !vote to keep. To say that "Keep because GNG" is "not based in policy" is simply false, but on the other hand, I'd like to see some evidence that he actually passes it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We know, because there are the odd snippet views, that there are mentions in Wisden. Beyond that, we know that he was on the MCC's staff for a long period - until way after he finished playing which is odd - and was given two benefit seasons by Middlesex, the first player to be given a second; both of those were after he'd finished playing as well. We know that players like this were profiled in Lillywhite's guides - for example, the other John West is profiled here. The problem is that we can't access those sources. And he umpired a Test.

There's something going on here and I'm 99% certain that a) sources exists and b) there's a story that's worth looking into. But it's going to take time and effort. I'm hopeful, per the discussion going on about access to sources at the cricket project, that we might have a way in to some of those sources - thanks to Spartaz's connections.

Can I show sources exist right now? No, I can't - beyond snippet views and the like. But this John West played 86 matches compared to the other John West's 52. He had two benefit seasons compared to one match. There's something there you know - the message board post that Alvadi found suggests as much. But there's no online sourcing.

So, if it has to be redirected, fine. I'll see what I can find and bring it back as a test case at some point if I'm able to. If people are happy to give it six months in main space, then that's fine as well - if I've found nothing after that I'll redirect it myself. If you really must delete it then go ahead, delete it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2022 (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.