Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rocky Flintoff

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 keep‎. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rocky Flintoff

[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)

Non-notable cricketer, who hasn't played at first-class/List A/Twenty20 level. Under-19 cricketers are deemed non-notable and most of his coverage seems to come as a result of his famous father, so WP:NOTINHERITED applies. An article can be created once he makes his senior debut. AA (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. AA (talk) 12:31, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG easily. Do we have an SNG being abused to deny wider community norms here? Where does it say under 19 cricketers are always non notable. This is no ordinary cricketer here but the son of a cricket icon. Easily passes notability standards and his coverage reflects his own efforts and not his Dad’s. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So basically your whole argument is WP:INHERITED. PS: I don't abuse anything on this site. WP:NCRIC says: "...cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level...". AA (talk) 16:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And GNG requires 2 sources and outranks NCRIC Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:38, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No response on WP:NOTINHERITED, which this clearly is... AA (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh you twist and twist but the coverage is about him Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:09, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:57, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unclear that he passes GNG - County 2nd XI would not generally make GNG, no major honours (per WP:SPORTSPERSON). Of citations, overwhelming majority are framed in terms of his father (WP:NOTINHERITED) - e.g. "Inside Freddie Flintoff's life with his adorable family...", Biggest test for Flintoff's talented sons...", "Freddie Flintoff's son, Rocky,...", "Andrew Flintoff's son makes...". He may well progress beyond county cricket into first class & intl - but he hasn't yet WP:LAGGING. Hemmers (talk) 14:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widespread coverage across the world in the BBC, Sky Sports, The Times, Malaysia Sun, Times of India, News18, The Independent, The Telegraph, Wisden, ESPNCricinfo and the list goes on. Yes the articles often mention his father in the headline or the article themselves but that is going to be the case his entire life unless he manages to totally surpass what his father achieved which is a high bar to set. The articles themselves are about him, not his father, and as such he easily passes the coverage test. Shrug02 20:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A lot of convenient ignoring of WP:NOTINHERITED going on here. If his father was Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes, there wouldn't be any coverage. I might start adding club cricketers with loads of coverage in county newspapers. AA (talk) 21:31, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We shall never know as his father isn't "Joe Bloggs, a plumber from Cleethorpes". But many of the players selected to play for England under 19s get media coverage despite not having famous fathers and also I would think that whoever broke a record set by Andrew Flintoff would at the very least get coverage in and around the Lancashire area and probably further afield too. But again we will never know as that isn't what happened, it was his son who broke the record. Shrug02 (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But the Second XI Championship has never been a high enough level of cricket to be deemed notable. Its matches hold no status, and as such are and have been considered since I've been here (2010) to be non-notable. Same with Under-19 cricket; there are countless Under-19 cricketers who have been deleted over the years, because that level of cricket also isn't notable and carries no match status. Just like many associate cricketers who have played T20I cricket aren't notable... AA (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are not an indiscriminate collection of any and all cricket trivia: WP:OFFCRIC. AA (talk) 22:49, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And again you put your sng over the gng Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:23, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFCRIC is a depreciated guideline that doesn't overrule WP:GNG. If someone has significant coverage to pass WP:GNG then they are entitled to an article regardless of the level of cricket they have played. Similarly, just because someone has played in a certain high level of cricket, that doesn't man they're automatically notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep yes he gets more coverage as the son of Andrew Flintoff, but he has exceptional levels of coverage about him/his career compared to most others at his level. And the coverage of him passes WP:GNG. Just because most articles have half an article about him then half an article about his father, that does not invalidate the coverage about him in these articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And as there is coverage about Rocky Flintoff and his cricket career, then WP:NOTINHERITED is not correct assertion in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:46, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should have a blanket ban on non-FC/LA/T20 players... otherwise we'll end up with minor counties cricketers, club cricketers, school cricketers, etc, who just so happen to do something in a form of cricket that doesn't carry status and has no notability here. Matches that carry status should be the gold standard for inclusion, especially after we have spent years defending our strict inclusion criteria from a certain Belgian and his friends who thought we were lax. Especially when articles like this lack quality and are refbombed the hell out of. 34 references for an article this size, seriously? AA (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We should 100% not have a blanket ban on anything- if an article meets WP:GNG, it can be included on Wikipedia. People can play a minor match like Flintoff Jr and get more coverage than someone playing 40 first-class matches in a country or historic time period with little coverage. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:31, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Spartaz. Easy WP:GNG pass. First-class/List A/Twenty20 standard is irrelevant as both cricket guidelines WP:CRIN and WP:OFFICIALCRICKET have been deprecated. 2001:861:3B89:90D0:2DB1:3B21:F04B:1070 (talk) 20:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An an IP knows this how? Quack. AA (talk) 21:26, 8 July 2024 (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.