Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Heath

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 appears that the individual has not played at the highest level, and therefore a merge Estonia national cricket team would be misleading. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 20:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Heath

[edit]

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

Timothy Heath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. Has not played in a first-class, List A or T20 match. Article is also full of BLP issues, using the subject's Facebook page as a source. Not sure if the poker claims in the article pass any notability either. Finally, the article's creator was blocked for block evasion/socking. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:59, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:11, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The games look like second or even third level internationals to me? Estonia is not recognised as a top level cricket cricket country by the ICC as far as I can tell. It has only affiliate status. This is even stated in the relevant article. So they are not playing at the highest level? Aoziwe (talk) 11:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure, hence why I'm more confident of a "merge" / "redirect" carrying through to consensus. However my experience with cricketer articles is things can get controversial. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:49, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! I think the NSPORT bar is way too easy to get over. Aoziwe (talk) 12:27, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a "top-level" match, as it's the Estonian second XI, playing matches in this tri-series. And even if it was the 1st team, the subject would still fail WP:NCRIC, as the matches fail point #4. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 12:17, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed with Lugnuts. It is not a full international team for Estonia. The match is not a T20I. And T20Is for associate ICC members need to be in a T20 World Cup, T20 World Cup qualifier, or regional qualifier final stages to count as 'highest level' anyway. I do feel that this needs to be made clearer though as it is not beyond reason to consider any T20I as 'highest level' in a sense. Regardless, this Estonian XI is not playing full T20Is anyway.Bs1jac (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The games concerned would be an official T20 International but the Estonian team could not field 11 Estonia qualified players and had to field some guest players. Once Estonia plays a full T20 Internatonal you could revisit this discussion. Topcardi (talk) 19:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - article creator has been blocked as sockpuppet and this article is the only cricket-related article this user has started. Unlike some which may later become notable, I would say that at the age of 40, perhaps this individual may not appear in matches beyond this point. As for "the NSPORT guidelines being too easy to get over".... where have you been through 15 years' worth of continuous conversation? Why do bored exclusionists seem to appear out of nowhere and formulate rules based on their own limited understanding - and why do they complain without being able to give an alternative worthwhile, universally applicable, NPOV inclusion criterion? Bobo. 15:50, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC. He has not played in a first-class, List A or T20 match and hence does not qualify. The matches played by Estonia in the current tournament do not have an official status as Estonia could not send an eligible XI. If he later plays in an official T20 the question is then about 'highest level' and WP:NCRIC currently says an associate ICC member t20i only passes if within specific levels of tournament (which this tournament would not be). Bs1jac (talk) 00:01, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a notable player, fails the already absurdly low NCRICKET criteria. Reywas92Talk 00:10, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See above. If you are unhappy with the CRIN criteria, as have recently been expanded, please bring this through the appropriate channels based on your knowledge of the subject and suggest alternative universally applicable inclusion criteria. Bobo. 11:06, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NCRIC, not likely to pass the criteria anytime soon. StickyWicket (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. - The matches involving Estonia in the T20I series were not granted international status despite the initial announcement which was given by ICC in January 2019 that all associate teams would get T20I status. ESPN Cricinfo website has also been quite reluctant in updating the stats related to the series due to other ongoing prominent cricket matches and leagues. Cricinfo stated the matches involving Estonia XI were treated as "Other T20" quite similar to the Hong Kong T20 Blitz. Abishe (talk) 10:50, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The cricket notability rules are just plain absurb. We need to come up with a more reasonable set of notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody who ever says that ever comes up with new ones which are universally applicable and which can be used universally as a yardstick. I wonder why? Is it because everything which has been stuck to for the last 15 years has been absolutely fine? Sure, we come across anomalies like the one we've seen recently, but that's nothing to do with our guidelines. If you can't suggest new, universally applicable guidelines, please don't tell us the ones we've been working to are wrong. In any case, if this cricketer does fail CRIN, that's a meaningless point. Bobo. 09:20, 2 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How about at least one first class wicket or at least thirty first class runs or at least one first class catch or at least one first class run out? Aoziwe (talk) 12:11, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then again, perhaps the reason they only made a single first-class appearance was exactly that reason! Any extra "benchmark" anyone adds which contains a value judgment would be a breach of NPOV. Bobo. 00:42, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of our notability guidelines are by definition intrinsically value judgements. Aoziwe (talk) 10:28, 5 April 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Timothy_Heath&oldid=1073184941"