Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ferrini
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. Kurykh 05:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] David Ferrini
Another procedural nomination. As every XfD regular (and newcomers who nominate articles in good faith and get bitten for their pains) is painfully reminded every so often, the cricketer biographical notability criteria differ from the usual WP:BIO criteria. I appreciate that for, say, football a full international would automatically be notable, but does a member of the Italian cricket team qualify in the same way? Procedural nomination — I really can't make up my mind about this one — so I abstain. I've crossposted a note regarding this AfD at WikiProject Cricket as the participants there are most likely to have opinons on the matter. — iridescent 14:46, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. If he had actually played in the World Cricket League it might have been a more difficult decision, but it looks like he didn't get a game even though he was in the squad.[1] [2] [3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil Bridger (talk • contribs) 15:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete He's not played for the Italian national team yet, and has not played at first-class or List A level, so is not really notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:43, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as per previous comments. Also commment: I find your preamble slightly provocative. The cricket notability guidelines are not supposed to be different from WP:BIO, they're supposed to explain what the Athletes section of WP:BIO means in the context of cricket. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I agree it should have been worded better - what I was trying to say was, cricket for historical reasons (multiple variants & offshoots, a tradition of amateurs at even the highest level, mostly not included in the Olympics, and for most of its history no clear-cut league pyramid) doesn't have as clear-cut a definition of "the highest level" as most other sports. — iridescent 10:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- I see what you meant now; thanks for clarifying. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I agree it should have been worded better - what I was trying to say was, cricket for historical reasons (multiple variants & offshoots, a tradition of amateurs at even the highest level, mostly not included in the Olympics, and for most of its history no clear-cut league pyramid) doesn't have as clear-cut a definition of "the highest level" as most other sports. — iridescent 10:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
