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 redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis Brady (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Profile article. No indication of being notable. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 19:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reading WP:BIO, under sports people, he passes the notability ("...person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition..") having played in first-class cricket matches. This section links to WP:NSPORT, which states at the top of the page "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", and below there is the critieria for WP:NCRIC. At worst, per WP:ATD-R, redirect back to the List of Otago representative cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have clearly rejected the hogwash idea that every "first class" cricket match play makes someone default notable. This article clearly fails the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Lugnuts: This is really poor quality, a profile article, due to the fact the sourcing itself comes from a profile. Why would a sports person likely come to read this article, when the profile itself has more information than this article. It would seem that the person would more likely go to the sports page to find the information, as there is more detail. What is point of it? scope_creep^Talk 21:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well you could argue that with ANY stub, not just those for sportspeople. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's strange how often people imply that article upkeep is just a single person's job. If people had any interest in working on Wikipedia they would help with creating and fostering articles, not destroying them. The fact that the articles which come up for deletion are mostly the work of either myself, AA, 02blythed, Jack, or Lugnuts, shows that we display dedication to the project where others lack such. Bobo. 16:44, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is a very-low quality article. scope_creep^Talk 17:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then improve it instead of sending it to AfD. Bobo. 18:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dude it is junk. I suspect it would take more than the combined effort of all the editors in Wikipedia to improve these small profile articles, particularly since there are reams of other articles on people, that are far more important in the scheme of things and yet, their articles still need to be improved. It is obvious you don't think it is important even to try to create small stub articles of 5k that are properly sourced with in-line cites, at the same time that everybody is told when they arrive in here, to create articles with in-line cites. They are taught it in high school. So why are you not doing it? It has less information than the profile. scope_creep^Talk 18:47, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then don't complain by assuming every article needs to be a one-person job if you can't stop it from being "junk". Bobo. 18:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete One sentence, and only one reference. Blubabluba9990 (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Merge/redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. If we don't have any sources beyond wide ranging statistical databases, then we shouldn't have a standalone article. Trivially passes NCRIC, so gets a very weak presumption of notability, but that cannot be proven without substantial sources so this has to go. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to List of Otago representative cricketers. Nominator's searches turned up no significant coverage, nor did mine. If his two-match career were truly notable, one would expect some significant coverage to be available. Finally, the article is currently a micro-stub, so that its deletion results in no material loss -- if some diligent researcher later develops the requisite coverage, the article can easily be re-created if and when warranted. Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I started noticing that these cricket articles make up a large percentage of the entries at Cat:NN. There is insufficient information contained in each one to verify if it is notable. It must confuse an awful lot of NPP reviewers, as there are hundreds of them. An example is James Hume (cricketer). Admittedly many were created over a decade ago and now being found and categorised, some created much sooner. scope_creep^Talk 10:09, 16 February 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.