Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Forbes (cricketer)

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 speedy keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:08, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Forbes (cricketer)[edit]

[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)

Fails WP:GNG; WP:SPORTSPERSON, "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject. Meeting this requirement alone does not indicate notability, but it does indicate that there are likely sufficient sources to meet the GNG (general notability guideline)." No significant coverage presented, search only uncovers listings. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Ireland. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the updated WP:NCRIC criteria - "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation" as she's played for Ireland multiple times this month alone, as well as plenty of domestic matches too. At worst, restore the redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:43, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An absolute nonsense nomination. Per the updated WP:NCRIC, as Lugnuts points out. StickyWicket (talk) 22:48, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above Mpk662 (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and keep - "I've never heard of them" isn't a viable deletion criterion. Taking an article to AfD - of an international cricketer - is not the way to get us looking at sources, etc. As I've stated elsewhere, the article creator Lugnuts and the (at least) half a dozen other content creators who have more-or-less stopped caring about the project over the years - have done so because of nominations like this. If you don't know anything about the subject or want more eyes upon an article, taking to AfD is not the solution. Bobo . 08:27, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw I have to admit, I was unaware of the updated WP:NCRIC criteria and was applying WP:GNG, which I believed she would have failed. Given that, I'm happy to withdraw my absolute nonsense. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 08:38, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Alexander. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and SW. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:06, 22 June 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.