Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cranston

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. While there is uncertainty whether meeting NCRIC alone is sufficient or not (which should be clarified at NSPORTS), the consensus here clearly leans towards requiring meeting at least the GNG. Redirect was an option, but List of Hertfordshire County Cricket Club List A players is a redlink (List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players, which was suggested as a target, is about another county (herT vs herE)). No objection obviously against a redirect if a suitable target is created. Fram (talk) 11:38, 20 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Tom Cranston

Tom Cranston (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)

PROD was removed.

Despite meeting WP:NCRIC, Mr. Cranston does not meet WP:GNG - I have been unable to locate sufficient in-depth sources that discuss him as a person. Per the FAQ on NSPORTS, passing the sport-specific notability guidelines is not a substitute for the GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Per Greenbörg's suggestion, I would also be in favor of a merge to any suitable list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep as per WP:CRIN. We were having a considerable amount of debate a while back and we realized that the two notability guideline pages completely contradict each other, and such is the problem in this case. This is not a problem with WP:CRIN but with the policy makers.

In any case, the individual passes WP:CRIN and is therefore entitled to an article. If you delete this article, you might as well delete willy-nilly every single article of every single sportsman who has achieved a single top-level appearance. Bobo. 11:51, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I would be 100% on board with that, assuming that those people did not otherwise meet GNG. We are not intended to be an indiscriminate collection of stubs. There have been tens of thousands of cricket players throughout history. It is ridiculous to think that merely appearing in one top-level game confers to each of them an encyclopedic level of notability. If the only reference we have for someone (or something! this opinion is not limited to cricketers) is a single reference to a statistical database, we don't have enough information to support an article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:28, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - in justifying to me why he has sent this article to AfD, User:Premeditated Chaos glorifies his past history of spam vandalizing the site. Bobo. 16:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm female, thanks, and that wasn't vandalism, it was a good-faith attempt to create an article that satisfied our standards in 2003. It was rightfully deleted in 2006 because we tightened our notability criteria. The point I was actually attempting to make was about changing notability criteria. I appreciate your mud-slinging though, don't think I've ever been accused of vandalism before. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – I've expanded the article a little bit, and there are a few other news reports, but they are all merely trivial coverage. It's pretty clear to me that this guy showed a little bit of promise in his teens, and Herts gave him a go for a few games. That he played a List A match (the first round of the C&G Trophy) is pretty inconsequential, it was clearly not at the top-level. His club cricket has been relatively ordinary; he doesn't even play in the highest division, and yet he isn't setting the world alight. I know tons of people around this level – they simply aren't notable, List A or no List A. Harrias ^talk 19:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Please forgive me as my current level of activity on WP is limited by outside circumstances. "Gave him a go for a few games" is not the issue. The issue is about judging the inclusion of an article based on existing criteria. If people are unwilling to do that, then may I suggest they suggest new, and consistent, criteria, by which to judge an article about a first-class cricketer? When an issue such as this comes up, there is always a lot of "I don't like it", but very little discussion about how to fix things. Suggestions please as to how these criteria should be changed. Bobo. 07:10, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  My opinion is based on our guidelines, without any element of "I don't like it" at all. WP:NSPORTS and it's subpages, such as WP:CRIN are designed to establish whether a player "is likely to meet the general notability guideline" (my emphasis). WP:N, often cited as disagreeing with this, actually states that "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. These guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article or list." In this case, Cranston is already included as a subject of List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players. WP:CRIN and WP:NSPORTS suggest that he might be notable enough for his own article, but in the face of the evidence provided by the sources, I suggest that he is not, as laid out above. I have no issue at all with where we set the bar in WP:CRIN: I think that one first-class, List A or Twenty20 match is a fair line to suggest that a player might be notable, but it is a guide, nothing more than that. Harrias ^talk 08:47, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - it shouldn't be hard to verify that a modern player meets WP:GNG. If it's proven they don't meet WP:GNG, the article should be deleted. Hack (talk) 04:36, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but this is precisely where the confusion lies and where we need to sort out before randomly sending articles we dislike to AfD just for banter purposes. The last time an article which met WP:CRIC was sent for deletion, we pointed out (I forget by whom and where) that the two main sources of decisions about what to do when an article clearly meets guidelines, completely contradict each other.

However, I stand by my previous comment. The fact that we're accepting the judgment of a Wikipedia vandal in what should and shouldn't be allowed on the site is... suspicious, to say the least. Bobo. 04:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's the second time you've called me a vandal on this AfD and I insist you strike your unwarranted personal attack. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's nice. Do you wish for me to post the link again? I shouldn't have to... especially given as I don't remove material from my talk page...

I would be interested in seeing you cite what you believe was the appropriate notability requirement at the time, given as you are questioning whether an article which the community has collaborated on clearly meets notability requirements... and that you state that you believe your article met notabliity requirements. Bobo. 05:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192:, Premeditated Chaos created a page, which at the time she felt met the notability requirements. It's worth mentioning that back in 2003, there basically weren't anything like the structured notability criteria we have now. This is how the Notability page itself looked in 2005. In her time on Wikipedia, Premeditated Chaos has had only one of her mainspace created pages deleted; you have had seven mainspace pages deleted; from this, do we draw that you are seven times as much of a vandal? Or rather, than you have both been working to create an encyclopaedia, and a couple of times created articles that were later found not to be suitable? Based on the fact that it is clearly the latter, please retract your personal attack. Harrias ^talk 07:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. In fact, I have had more than seven of my articles deleted, but I'm interested in which seven you are referring to. Some of them were Scottish footballers for Alloa Athletic, prior to my being aware that only the top two Scottish leagues were considered notable enough for the site. Admittedly I forget why I added Abbas Jawad - perhaps he was in a squad list or similar and I added every name from that squad list without checking their prior history? Not sure. Once again, I accept that this was deleted. I suspect the same was true of Shameel Kazmi... Ryan Watkins was mis-redirected at some point, the subject was changed, and the article was deleted on those grounds. Joachim Alda and Franz Alexius was part of a project of mine to translate as many missing articles from de.wiki as possible - I must have overlooked their individual notability as per en.wiki guidelines. Hold my hands up to that one. Adrian Pelka I had no idea about to be honest. Again, I had listed a group of footballers from de.wiki and was in a process of translating. Nine further Scottish footballers as I was once again unaware that the notability requirements differed from those of English football... nine Belgian cricketers as I was once again finishing a list from what was, at the time, the second column on CA. One cricket article which was accidentally mistyped, redirected and then deleted as an RfD, one further Scottish footballer, and one cricketer who once again was a redlink in a list that I was filling in and which I now know does not fit WP:CRIC.

In other words, 99 percent of what I was doing was misplaced completionism! Which, apparently, is the problem here..! Bobo. 10:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At some point we will have to go through articles such as 2003 Youth Asia Cup and remove redlinks of cricketers who don't meet WP:CRIC requirements. That would clean up the possibility of this happening in the future. Bobo. 10:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And while you're here, why don't you explain what you mean by given as I don't remove material from my talk page...? Are you suggesting that I edited our conversation on my talk page, because if that's the case I'd love for you to show me the diff where I did that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:39, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I said nothing of the sort. You created an article which to me looks like a bona fide CSD G1. Something bored schoolchildren do as a laugh when they think their teacher's back is turned in ICT lessons. Bobo. 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a pretty simple proposition. He's either been the subject of significant coverage in reliable or he hasn't. The cricket notability guideline is used as a guide to gauge whether a player has received such coverage. The nominator is making the case that Cranston fails the general notability guideline. Hack (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As for whether he fails GNG, this is precisely the point I've been making. We have discussed, on AfDs such as this, contradictory information about whether an article which already meets individual project notability criteria needs to meet GNG or not. This is where the confusion lies. Which, to me, completely invalidates GNG. Bright-line notability requirements are the only way to achieve true NPOV. Bobo. 10:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - if you are claiming that we are focusing on a "single reference" to a statistical database, any single person who knows anything about cricket reading this page could just as easily supply a second. Bobo. 05:49, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - it seems odd to me that no matter how many times we come upon cricket articles which are acceptable for Wikipedia, not a single time have we ever changed our perspective on what does, and doesn't, qualify a first-class or List A cricketer for inclusion. Valid suggestions please as to ways we can alter our inclusion criteria. Bobo. 05:57, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - please forgive so many comments in a single line. Just providing questions for participants to answer while I'm still within reach of a computer. I don't see where the conflict is here with GNG. :"Significant", yep. The biggest online cricket database on the Internet. "Reliable", yep. We've proven this many times that CA and CI are independently run organizations which compile stats (which don't always agree with each other), which proves that one doesn't simply rely on the other for "stealing" stats. "Sources". Yep. No explanation. "Independent of the subject". No explanation needed.

The question about whether the word "sources" (plural) is the issue has been touched upon before, and as I've said already, this is easily rectifiable. Bobo. 06:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails WP:GNG, no evidence article subject has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. The reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of WP:NSPORTS however this is not significant coverage per WP:SPORTSBASIC, being made up of Routine game coverage. Subject-specific notability guidelines are designed to provide a guide as to whether a subject might pass WP:GNG. This is useful for older topics when access to reliable sources may not have been readily available however this is a modern sportsman whose career is currently underway. The fact that significant coverage can not be found for a contemporary sportsman suggests that the subject is not notable. Hack (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Andy Armstrong, Alan Bell, Stuart Boon, John Cundle, Christopher Debenham, Neil Gladwin, David Hughes, Nigel Ilott, Richard Jerome, Ronnie Kotkamp, Andy Lewis, Jamie Murch, Tom Pearman, Tony Skeggs, Chris Thomas, Neil Vartan, Matthew Walshe, Lawrence Wright. All cricketers, just for Hertfordshire, who have made a single List A cricketing appearance. Feel free to AfD these too - it would be hypocritical not to, right? I'll be glad to make lists for other teams if you wish... Bobo. 18:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - an as-yet unquoted guideline: "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (WP:SPORTSPERSON, my emphasis). Perhaps this is the source I intended to mention when I said that there was contradictory information as to whether sportspeople automatically bypassed GNG... Courtesy ping to @Premeditated Chaos:, @Harrias:, @Hack:. My fault for not seeking this out before. My personal belief is that this contradictory information completely invalidates WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON equally. My on-wiki time is currently limited by outside forces. Bobo. 03:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see absolutely no contradiction. Indeed, if we were talking about a cricketer from the 1960s or 1890s, I would be fully behind WP:CRIN based upon this. However, this is a player from the 2000s, during the internet age. We have no need to presume anything. If there was going to be significant coverage, we should be able to see it. Indeed, we can see enough information to build up a decent profile of the player. I have included in the article all that I have been able to find, and made further conclusions above. When we had no other information, we could look and think it was likely that there was "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". However, we have now looked and discovered that there isn't. Harrias ^talk 06:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I see the word "presumed" as the biggest weasel word in this entire conversation, as it is based on nothing more or less than personal opinion. Which, thankfully, isn't the fault of either one of us, because it is present in an (incredibly woolly and, as we are gradually learning, practically inapplicable) guideline. Saying that you apply different standards to a player of the 1960s-80s to one of the 2000s is, in itself, admitting time-bias - which, we both have to admit, is going to happen with every single player before the introduction of the Internet age. Surely, in this case, we are questioning the wrong player from the wrong era. Bobo. 08:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep  The notability guideline is WP:N.  WP:GNG is but one of the ways to satisfy WP:N.  The claims at WP:NSPORTS that WP:GNG is required even when the NSPORTS criteria are met, are problematic; but the controlling authority is WP:N, which says that WP:NSPORTS is an alternate to WP:GNG.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG clearly lacks significant coverage in reliable sources.Further the subject has played just 1 List A cricket match and scored 18 runs which is an insignificant contribution and is 33 years and not clear if still plays cricket.He comprehensively fails WP:GNG through may scrape WP:CRIN on basis of the one match.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - to you, Pharaoh, it may seem "insignificant", but as per WP:CRIN guidelines that is enough for an article. Please feel free to suggest, discuss, and request implementation of the criteria you wish to measure cricket articles by. Saying "it is insignificant" is meaningless if you don't suggest what you would believe to *be* significant.... Bobo. 17:49, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - you are right, @Aguyintobooks:, thank you. This debate goes deeper than this article and needs looking at significantly outside of this AfD. Bobo. 17:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- Fails WP:GNG. A single game and a listing in a statistical database are insufficient to show notability. I could support a merge to a suitable list article, if there is one. Reyk _YO! 17:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I still believe we are working on the basis of two completely contradictory guidelines, WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSPERSON. GNG is ridiculously woolly and inspecific when we are working purely on a binary decision. Bobo. 18:02, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• @Reyk:, how many games would you like to see a player achieve before you considered him "sufficiently" notable? This is precisely the question which needs answering. A criticism of a guideline without a workable solution from the criticizer is meaningless. Bobo. 18:07, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Responding to every single comment at an AfD and pinging editors insisting they justify their reasoning to you in detail verges on bludgeoning. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. If we weren't trying to justify answers to questions about articles which clearly pass notability guidelines I probably wouldn't. I'm merely attempting to provide valid discussion points about implementation of notability criteria, precisely as Aguyintobooks suggested we do, and precisely what some people are ignoring. If you really want to make some attempt to alter notability criteria, here and now is not the time or place. Bobo. 23:12, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. If I wasn't convinced by the badgering of previous participants, I certainly won't change my mind at more badgering directed at me. Reyk _YO! 05:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment One more and I'm done. Seriously. Act like children, get treated like children. It's simple. A, I didn't start the "badgering", I was thanking a user for making me look at a specific guideline which I doubt many people have actually read before judging by this conversation, B, it's not "badgering", learn new words please, I was specifically thanking three people (at the same time) for making me look at criteria I'd honestly not read before, C, the fact that we are going against years'-worth of criteria which we have continuously, boringly defended to the point of driving people insane, is hypocritical to levels I've never seen here before, D, not a single person who has ever voted "delete" on a player with a single first-class appearance has ever said, "but this is a viable, alternate, NPOV solution to years and years of notability criteria which we have stuck to". End of the day, this is a conversation which needs to take place somewhere completely other than here. By more people than have participated here.

For what it's worth. I'm sorry. I have an explanation for my frustration but this is the last place anyone wants to hear it. I refuse to make excuses. Accept my apology or not. I'm done. Bobo. 07:53, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The arguments for deletion are unconvincing and I do not accept that there has been any downgrade of WP:SPORTS vis-a-vis GNG. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:57, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 2002_Cheltenham_&_Gloucester_Trophy#First_round. He was part of notable event with any doubt but scoring only 18 runs in your only List A match is not enough to be part of multiple non-trivial coverage. Similarly, we don't create article on everyone who was part of the cast of a notable film. Instead, we have article when he/she has done major role in multiple films. Secondly, we don't have article for individual who was part of notable event like terrorist attacks. Instead, we redirect them to the event for which they were notable. I suggest we should do this for modern cricketers. Redirecting and adding categories to the entry will be better than deleting because afterall he passes WP:CRIN. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 09:52, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @Premeditated Chaos:, @Bobo192:, @Hack:, @Pharaoh of the Wizards:, @Harrias:, @Reyk: I'm against deletion of any cricketer bio which passes WP:CRIN. Redirecting to better target for such cases will be better for the project. We will keep his name in the list such as List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players which he deserves rather deletion altogether. I think this could be good starting point to sort out notability related issues of modern cricketer. Calling for deletion will not solve issues mentioned. We generally redirect Playboy Playmates to the list for which they are notable. For example, Michelle McLaughlin is redirected to List of Playboy Playmates of 2008. They all are one line biographies. So, doing something like that will be useful for the project. I hope other who voted delete will understand the problem. Any good suggestion will be welcomed. Thanks, Greenbörg (talk) 13:07, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I've said, I'm in favour of presenting information like this in a suitable list. When an article on a (presumably) living person contains only statistical, rather than biographical, information it generally fails WP:GNG and so it is best to present it in statistical form alongside other similar statistics. Inflating raw stats into prose often tempts the writer to add more than is actually in the source. Reyk _YO! 13:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Reyk - are you wondering right now why I'm not asking you to stop badgering a participant in an AfD? Because I have better things to do like make Wikipedia a better place instead of having circular arguments like this. Don't criticize me for something and then commit it yourself. That entirely invalidates your position. Bobo. 17:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It isn't badgering if Greenbörg specifically pings me asking for my opinion. Reyk _YO! 17:24, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just like it wasn't badgering when I pinged people specifically asking for their opinion? Oops... that makes your comment conclusively invalid. Please stop. Bobo. 17:29, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • No, if you ping a bunch of people you may be badgering, particularly if you comment frequently and repetitively. If I respond to a ping, such as Greenboerg's, I am answering a request for comment in good faith. My opinion has been asked for; the badgerer's generally hasn't been. Do you understand the difference? You appear to be trying to provoke me with sarcasm and false accusations of hypocrisy. If so, you are wasting your time. It won't work. Reyk _YO! 17:50, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • "May be badgering". What an embarrassing climbdown. Your opinion is invalidated. Thank you. I was pinging so that people knew I had responded to them. For exactly the same reason everyone pings everyone about everything. Bobo. 17:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • The reason what you were doing was badgering is that you were only saying to me the same things you'd already said to every other delete voter in the discussion. There was no need to say it, and certainly no need to ping anyone about it. That definitely is badgering: if your replies to others failed to convince me when I read through the AfD, repeating the same things to me won't do the trick either. Now please stop these kindergarten attempts at point scoring. Reyk _YO! 18:01, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • That is the single most blatant lie in this entire discussion. You said that a single game was not good enough, I asked you how many games were good enough. You failed to respond, therefore you have no opinion. I'm still happy to read an answer if you are prepared to provide one. I doubt it though, Bobo. 18:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • On a (marginally) less disturbingly petty note, that kind of proves that a single game is the one and only reasonable and rational line in the sand. Bobo. 18:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - you contradicted yourself within your first two sentences. Keep or merge? Bobo. 17:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I just compared the article as it was when deletion was asked for and the way it is now. This got sent to AfD for two reasons, because it was vandalized in its "sent to AfD" state (bolded for clarification) and because there was no infobox. The article wouldn't have been sent for deletion if it were not vandalized and if it had had an infobox... because it would have looked prettier. And yet we are apparently against raw stats articles. Bobo. 17:09, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:GNG. Meeting NSPORT is not an alternative to meeting GNG; it merely means there's a good reason to think that an athlete does meet GNG when sources not in the article (or not easily available online) are taken into consideration. In this case, even the keep voters haven't argued that this presumption is actually right in this specific case.
  The GNG-NSPORT relationship has been discussed ad nauseam, including quite recently in this very long VPP discussion where the consensus on this was affirmed:
  

The first theme developed a strong consensus that the GNG is the controlling guideline, while the criteria at NSPORT are useful tools to try to quickly determine the likelihood of an article meeting the GNG. [...]

There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion.

As noted by the nominator, this is even in WP:NSPORT's own FAQ:

Q2: If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline?

A2: No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline.

Sideways713 (talk) 02:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - wow, what a lengthy, and for the most part, civil discussion. With good points on both sides. Sideways713 makes a very coherent argument however, and I'll have to agree with that reasoning, somewhat (hence the "weak"). Onel5969 ^{TT me} 21:00, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per NCRIC. I have stated on a RfC somewhere else that the reason WikiProject N standards are superior to the GNG, even if more inclusive, is because the GNG is way too General for the specifics of life. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:12, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete--Echo Onel.Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 06:08, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Redirect – I was evaluating this discussion in a closing/relisting role, when I realised that discussion is probably too controversial for even a non-admin relisting, let alone a full NAC. I also realised that I was opinionated on the discussion. For most of my reading of the discussion I was swinging towards 'keep'—which is my starting viewpoint for all AfDs (except my nominations)—due to the vast number of policies cited by Bobo192 which state that the general notability guideline does not have to be met for WP:NSPORTS to apply in practice. In general I lean towards that argument, because—as stated above by L3X1—GNG is just too general for specific areas of content. But that's not policy.

However, reading later on in the discussion, I saw Sideways713's argument above that pointed to this heavily participated village pump discussion. When it was happening I had noticed it was there, but didn't seem to be around for the closure. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. The 'weak' is rather because that closure has not been linked or obeyed much, and is not in common use. The redirect should happen as per WP:ATD-R. Sorry for having to make this argument quite lengthy. J947^{(c) (m)} 07:52, 20 September 2017 (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.