Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G. Bull

Add links
Source: 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

G. Bull

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

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

Batting style/bowling style unknown, dob unknown. Fails

WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 06:03, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does that mean we are "everything-else-pedia" because we have articles on other things too? There are articles on topics other than cricket, surprisingly. Bobo. 12:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - we're stretching a bit here. If the only reason we're trying to get things deleted is because we don't know someone's birth/deathdate and/or bowling action, that's stretching it slightly. Bobo. 12:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Personal attack removed)

  • Comment. Article updated and corrected with his first name and further detail of his appearances; it seems the second of them was only a last day cameo, rather than a full appearance, for what was described as "a very weak team". wjematherplease leave a message... 12:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it the British Newspaper Archive link that provides his first name? Not meaning to badger - just a general question as we cannot access said link without subscription. Bobo. 12:45, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the relevant quote is at WT:CRIC if you're interested. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers, forgive me for being sceptical. That's just the kind of thing that happens when people send hundreds of articles for deletion indiscriminately. Considering what we had when the article was first set up - which is absolutely fine for an article, by the way - the article looks good now. Bobo. 12:54, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A comment left by a member on this AfD discussion was deleted by wjemather without any warning or permission to do so. Bobo. 13:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It was removed per
    WP:RPA), as noted in the edit summary. Anything further? wjematherplease leave a message... 15:00, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
To answer the question you left on my talk page, I wasn't leaving it as a personal attack, I was leaving it to let people know that people were editing others' comments. I'm not certain that's particularly ethical... Bobo. 17:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're missing the point, and I wasn't suggesting you did. No comments were edited or refactored; an unambiguous personal attack was removed (as it should be). I've now added the rpa template, if that helps, but I won't restore the signature. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, I think his personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zulqarnain (cricketer, born 1998) was more offensive. People need to remember that this is a volunteer project and such attacks really do damage the project. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 20:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No loss, the user in question is rude, berates the work of others (across AfD and FAC), and does not contribute beyond trolling those areas. They've been taken to ANI numerous times, yet nothing is done by the admins about their uncivil conduct. I'd swap them for someone who expands content anyday. StickyWicket (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What did we say about badgering? Please stop removing other people's comments. Bobo. 18:08, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
By the way (trying to be pleasant for a second in what has become a toxic atmosphere), I hope you didn't mind my asking about the BNA link. Always hard to access subscription material. Unless of course it's so painfully easy to get past a paywall! (One day Cricket Archive will take note of this and spoil it for all of us!) Bobo. 18:15, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide diffs for your accusations or withdraw them. And of course I don't mind any questions regarding the sources added. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Forgive me. Maybe I duplicated my comment from earlier because I'm too tired of all this. You're making it sound like it's an excusable action. We're all too tired out by this process for it to matter any more. Doesn't excuse it though, eh? Bobo. 21:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We're getting somewhere with this guy. I've given Hampshire's cricket historian the heads-up about what Wjemather and Johnlp have found out about him, so hopefully he will have the material to dig even deeper. The circumstances surrounding his two FC appearances are, I would argue, rather unique in County Championship history. There's no reason why more sources can't be found and the article expanded further, especially as more information becomes available. StickyWicket (talk) 11:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't find anything on him in my own historical archive search because of F.G. Bull, who played for Essex, is clearly notable, and whose article needs to be desperately expanded. In terms of notability, making a delete !vote is still a heck of a lot more justifiable than a keep at the moment since SIGCOV really isn't there even with the match reports, but given the historical nature of the article and the improvement so far, it's not impossible for this to be kept. SportingFlyer T·C 21:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Including *every* cricketer who played in two matches and did *nothing* else is not for Wikipedia. NCRIC is only a soft rule which presumes there will be other sources to establish a cricketer's notability over and above the standard statistical sites but not every one/two/three appearance wonder does generate significant coverage. Most of them don't. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:08, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment
    Lewis (baseball) anyone? StickyWicket (talk) 09:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I saw that and was very surprised that there would be an article for someone who played one baseball game. Tbf, he does/did hold some MLB records but it's still classic sports anorak stuff. The only reason there are articles like that and this one is because there are enough people who have an interest in sport but don't always see the difference between someone who is notable and a bit of trivia. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 09:56, 26 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/G._Bull&oldid=1073223567"