Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val Holten

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 under WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 05:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Val Holten

[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)

Unable to establish notability. Coverage is extremely sparse on this person, and his name makes it tough to do a thorough search. The most noteworthy thing is that he lives on in an award in cricket, but nothing else I could find. SWinxy (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Cricket, and Australia. SWinxy (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remember that until recently were were keeping all First Class cricketers. Yes, the strange thing about this player is that he has made a name for himself in what is essentially two levels below FC cricket. But it's at the level that means he still gets coverage in a major Australian newspaper. But the thing is, he was really big in his day ([1][2][3] - all more than routine match coverage) and Notability does not degrade over time. If we were having this conversation in 1954 there would be no question about his notability. St Anselm (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, no - coverage is not extremely sparse - the trick is to click "newspapers" rather than "news". St Anselm (talk) 21:49, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's good that you were able to find some more sources (Google Books normally shows newspapers as well in the searches). But those sources still don't constitute significant coverage on the person. What you're pulling from is information about the cricket matches Holten played in, not on Holten himself. Being "big in his day" is not a measure for notability, either. If he was notable, you'd have more than one source with his biography (and is Cricket Victoria an RS?). SWinxy (talk) 22:20, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Cricket Victoria is a reliable source - I see no reason why it shouldn't be. When I say "more than routine match coverage" it was things like (a) he won the Tatts Lottery, (b) he bowled inswingers that moved late, (c) he's one of the state's most useful cricketers. (I could also add [4], which had his run aggregate record.) So more than a run-of-the-mill cricketer. You see, it's not just the coverage (that we can find). It's that he's consistently described by modern major newspapers as "legendary". St Anselm (talk) 22:40, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But if you really want your two sources with reliable coverage, this is also a reliable source. St Anselm (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What guidelines support your arguments though? What significance of him winning a lottery or a play means he's notable? And what sources are you referring to with that Google search? It's leading to zero newspapers referring to Holten as "legendary". SWinxy (talk) 22:54, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to the Google search because the Herald Sun result there is behind a paywall and so I can't paste the link directly. St Anselm (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait - try this. St Anselm (talk) 23:42, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Copious coverage in Trove: https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/category/newspapers?keyword=%22val%20holten%22 Sheijiashaojun (talk) 02:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The second entry there ("Holten made two starts") is certainly significant coverage in an independent reliable source. St Anselm (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm certainly leaning very strongly towards keep - these sorts of players in this sort of era often generated a tonne of coverage in the media. It takes times to extract it all and develop it, but based on what we have here already I'm pretty happy that it can be developed - we've seen similar things this year with other articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be enough coverage here for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:12, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - easily meets WP:BIO. Deus et lex (talk) 10:45, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coverage establishes that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 05:47, 4 September 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.