Talk:Frederick Alexander (cricketer)

Notability

A search of the name using variables from the article, "name (cricketer)", "name/ date of birth", and "date /country", and a host of other options, did not return the subject of the article except the Wikipedia page.

The article uses only an "External link", apparently as a source, but it fails #6 of "Links normally to be avoided" as well as WP:ELREG. The link redirects to a subscription page so does not provide anything to the reader and is generally seen only as advertisement for that site.

The availability of sourcing as provided by the policies and guidelines, certainly significant coverage in reliable and independent sources, clearly indicates the subject fails to meet the criterion for a stand-alone article.

If anyone watches this page please note that if sourcing cannot be provided then consider an option of merging this (if there are any sources that might verify content and an available target) or it could be subjected to AFD. Otr500 (talk) 09:32, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

• Advertised at relevant projects. Otr500 (talk) 09:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I've added 2 links (1 is subscription only, on the site that was in ext link). For the record, the subject of article passes WP:NCRIC. The cricinfo bio states he also played football, but I can't find anything about him in this regard. Spike 'em (talk) 10:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

If the fact that an article uses an exernal link as a source upsets you, feel free to change the words "external link" to reference. The link was not behind a paywall when it was first placed. The article contains exactly the same content. I inserted the phrase "external link" into the article 12 years ago. Things were just done that way in those days. Once again, the fact that no complaint is made until 12 years after the article is set up, is annoying. Can't people have been frustrated by this at the time? Bobo. 19:34, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Well! I was compiling a nice reply to the initial respondent (including a reply concerning the "record") when I got sick and my computer decided to restart. When I checked back I see I was "nicely attacked" (scolded, or otherwise received seemingly negative comments) by an admin. I will respond to accusations first.

• @ Bobo192: Assertions that I am, or have somehow become, upset or even "frustrated", is unfounded even to bring into a conversation as some form of presumption. Maybe it was a poor choice of words, because you are apparently annoyed, so possibly "lashing out", but that does not mean that I was in the least bit perturbed. I think I have a pretty good history of that being an erroneous observation.

I realize that some editors, and even admins, consider that all things should be included on Wikipedia, no matter how poorly sourced, and some may consider that including such information in another article, that may offer improvements, is somehow not a good goal of an encyclopedia. I suppose, like bot assisted edit counts to some editors, it does help make Wikipedia look bigger and to some that may equate to better. I think creating a multitude of fractured permanent career stubs might be better sometimes merged to a parent article.

I have my opinions and others have theirs. Sometimes it takes more than two to reach a conclusion, sometimes extra "eyes" are needed, and sometimes it takes a more broad majority. Sometimes the state of an article can hide the actual notability (poor sourcing or lack of readily or easily found sources) and others may have better access to particular sources, especially where they have interest.

My "job", as a volunteer, is to make improvements to the best of "my ability" that also has for a long time included maintenance. I don't think I have ever exhibited anything to prove otherwise. I don't "choose" to make some edits, such as suggested, especially if I don't see (didn't find) evidence of notability or the edit involves a pseudo biography with no improvements in that area. Sometimes it is just out of my area of interest so I defer to someone else. I did not think one source was indicative of notability and certainly not as an external link. This is why I made the comments after placing the tags. It seems easier than inundating Wikipedia with additions to AFD.

There are some that choose to assert that WP:NCRIC alone is a guarantee for inclusion and not just a presumption. I feel that there is no confusion in the policies and guidelines concerning WP:Notability (people) (or other notability criteria), as evidenced by WP:NSPORTS. It is "specifically spelled out" in the "Applicable policies and guidelines" section stating "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline". The "Basic criteria" section (also reflected at WP:Notability (people)#Basic criteria) goes even more more in-depth with "A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.". I didn't create nor assist in the creation of any of the notability standards. If "anyone" gets annoyed that others tend to use these "standards" to create a better encyclopedia, I would think issues would be directed at those particular areas or persons maybe in attempting to get them changed, instead of at an individual editor that attempts in good faith to follow them. That is just my personal opinion but I think not so much in a minority. :As for the 12 years of longevity; I was not there at the time and consensus by silence may mean that it has just flown under the radar. At any rate consensus can certainly change. I know that there were issues and that 12 years of remaining stagnant does not mean there is not room for improvement.

• For anyone keeping record, there was a "does not cite any sources" tag from 2017 and five "citation needed" tags (2009 and an edit summary that external links are not references) so "someone" has already given indications that more sources were in fact needed which is supported by "...and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.". This was not exactly a 12 year spotless record nor were tags and comments without merit.

• I can point out as fact that in three days, since I added the tags and made comments, the article, that has since 2017 been apparently sourced only with an "external link" (the way it was done?), has received 17 edits (not counting the bot) and four references. If anyone sees that as a negative please let me know on my talk page as I would be interested in entertaining the rationale.

At any rate, thank you Spike 'em for improvements as well as Harrias, Blue Square Thing, BlameRuiner, and Lugnuts. I apologize if I "annoyed" anyone else but I do not make any such apologies for assisting in improving Wikipedia. ---- Have a great day. Otr500 (talk) 01:44, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I'm trying to break this down comment by comment, so please forgive me. The concern of "multiple, fractured stubs" is probably not an issue in this case. There are many more articles to worry about in those terms than simply this one. And this one, as has been demonstrated, has proven to be much more "expandable" than others. There are hundreds of articles which, by current standards, would be/have been deleted based on the lack of what other people consider to be acceptable sourcing. And hopefully, over time, more "appropriate", "acceptable" sourcing will come to light. There is probably sourcing of many articles on Ranji Trophy cricketers from India, which will come to light which not necessarily every single one of us has particularly easy access to. Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) is one example - another article, S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), got deleted on grounds of - apparently - insufficient sourcing. Once again, I'm sure one day these will come to light such that we are able to provide more information on him, including his birthname and biographical details. I believe that, as Perera played as recently as 1998-99, once we know where these details can be found, we will be able to source these much easier, for example, than a player from the 1940s or 1950s. Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), meanwhile, was referenced in a comtemporary newspaper report, which took some much deeper searching. Not all references and/or details can be found easily online. Personally I am sure the same will be true of the Kurunegala YCC player, as soon as we know the appropriate place to look.

As I've said elsewhere, the link on Cricket Archive did not require registration when it was first added, twelve years ago, and there are dozens, probably hundreds of articles which contain zero external links/sources at all. I hope none of these was created by myself, as I hope these references were all added in time, either by me or someone else.

If you feel an article needs "extra eyes", please suggest so in the appropriate place. Often there are errors and/or inconsistencies added to articles, mostly in formatting, or such, and obviously no single person "owns" an article they have created. Sending an article to AfD just to prove a point or for the sake of cleanup is not the way to bring extra eyes to an article. If you feel an article needs cleaning up, please suggest so in the appropriate place.

As for any guidelines you have quoted, they are precisely that. Guidelines. GNG is a "guideline". It says so itself. N is a "guideline". CRIN is a "guideline". I have my own personal opinions on that, mostly the fact that the two main notability guidelines (N and GNG) contradict each other based on whether GNG needs or needs not to be followed with relation to articles which conform to a specific SSG. And that we treat one "guideline" above another of apparently the same standing, is purely an excuse to flout neutral point of view. But that's not the point of this conversation. If we are not - apparently - working to strict brightline rules, then I believe we are trying to destroy our own work. Reminds me of Frankenstein.

If you feel one reference is not suitable for an article, then please feel free to add more, or to take this to the appropriate arena where more eyes, who will know better than myself where we can find further sources, can see it. If you feel that "sometimes" it takes two, please feel free to add more depending on which ones you find acceptable, and your knowledge of the subject in question. There is another source everybody on the CRIC project knows to add, whether they are acceptable by themselves is a question we are finally tackling, after 15 years. If you want the actual quote from the page on WP:N, it states that an article is "presumed" notable (I've no idea what "presumed" means in this context, and in any case, most people will believe you have highlighted the wrong word), if "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Or. Once again, there are disagreements on this. And if you consider the source(s) we use to be unacceptable, please state so yourself in the appropriate manner at the appropriate place. Better still, add your own, which you consider acceptable. And if you have better ideas for subject-specific notability guidelines, once again, please suggest these in an appropriate place based on your knowledge of the subject. If you feel you have a more appropriate subject-specific guideline to suggest than the exact same subject-specific guideline(s) used in every team sport, and the one we have been using in cricket for the last 15 years, please suggest these, also, in the appropriate area, based on your knowledge of the subject.

Is that everything? My brain hurts... Bobo. 02:15, 15 December 2019 (UTC)