Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitty (cricketer)

Add links
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 'OWZAT! ...... Not out. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chitty (cricketer)

[edit]

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

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

Fails WP:GNG.Trivial pass of WP:NCRICKET. ∯WBGconverse 09:46, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:31, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Though I appreciate the work, and the "pass" comment, I cannot see the notability in this article. In fact, if this article actually "passes," many others should too. No paper trail, no references besides the one of his record (and scanty), and no relevance to other WP articles. This is definitively an example of an article for deletion. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 10:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Passing WP:NCRICKET automatically makes the subject notable, so there is no question about notability. Figures from any sport must exceed a goal-certain which, when met, fulfill Wikipedia notability criteria. Baseball players in America also have a low bar: they must appear on the field in a major league game. Doesn't make them notable in the eyes of the world, but they do obtain sport-related Wikipedia notability by doing so. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The guideline that has been wikilinked by you also states:--The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. ∯WBGconverse 11:53, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The source is the well-known and reputable work and book by Arthur Haygarth, Scores & Biographies, Volume 1 (1744–1826). That's enough for notability to be achieved. There is no reason for Haygarth to be removed as a Wikipedia source. Please rethink this nom, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The linked page also quotes No, the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline..SNGs are there because it is presumed (and I emphasise on this particular word) that anybody meeting SNG ought to have got sufficient coverage to pass GNG.I've been planning on this nom for quite a long time and my background-searches leads me to believe that there exists not an iota of coverage about this subject.Also, NOTDIRECTORY. ∯WBGconverse 11:50, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I appreciate your take but as they say, the community is comprised of very people like you. So,....... ∯WBGconverse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, of course, it is up to the community, as always-- the ones who show up. Few articles I have ever voted for destruction, preferring to ignore those outsides of my area, but this one stopped me on my tracks. The double standards are so obvious that it made me cringe. If this could pass, then those that I have seen deleted for lacking a healthy number of secondary sources but having historical prominence nevertheless should have survived too. If this article is going to stay, I strongly suggest emphasizing its historical significance, of someone who may have been John Chitty. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 14:21, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- I think I have to clear up some fundamental misunderstandings here. Passing a SNG does not guarantee notability; it merely yields a rebuttable presumption. Furthermore, the fact that WP:NCRICKET was rammed into the SNGs with minimal discussion means that it cannot be considered binding on the community. What we have here is a virtually empty microstub on an obscure cricketer with sourcing so meager that it doesn't even allow the subject to be unambiguously identified. The sole "source" in the article does not contain a single word of prose. This article is essentially a few cells of an excel spreadsheet bloated grotesquely. I could support the creation of list articles where these bare statistical entries could be included. But I can support neither the creation of empty stubs on people whose names we don't even know, nor the continued misleading pretense that "meets my pet over-inclusive guideline = 100% ironclad guaranteed notability". I now eagerly await the usual barrage of abuse from WP:CRIC. Reyk YO! 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example text is a very good reflection of the voting trends. Wot I essentially see is that allmost all the keep! voters belong to the project, (which likely is sort of an echochamber). ∯WBGconverse 06:17, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's interesting that we're declaring notability for an individual who is not actually known to have existed...it's clear that there are multiple contenders for the name, so precisely which one are we considering notable? —54129 13:11, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep If you want to change WP:NCRIC or WP:CRICN, then start a discussion or RfC there. According to those guidelines, he is notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubbish.Read Blue Square's defence. ∯WBGconverse 12:23, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - on balance this is almost certainly a delete. The coverage in CricketArchive and CricInfo is purely statistical. It is not significant or in depth in any way, which is the level of sourcing required. The basis of the SNG is that we might assume that there is a good chance that, because the chap played a single first-class match, that suitable sources which are in depth and provide significant coverage exist. On balance I am totally unconvinced that such coverage exists in this case - and, as a result, the SNG assumption that such sources might exist, can not be maintained. For example, the match he played in (England v Surrey XI, 28-30 August 1800) is not covered at all in The Times and the Sporting Post identifies Chitty in a list: For Surrey, Winchilsea, Waller & Chitty vice Mr Wells, Harding & J Hampton; H Hampton played. That's not in depth coverage.
Ultimately we have no forename, no dates, nothing. We can live without an article on him. I know it's not as easy as checking that he played a single game, but ultimately the sources are simply not there for this chap. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of which are in depth enough to do anything other than prove he played in the match. That's way, way, way below the level of coverage required to come close to the level of detail which the assumption at the centre of NSPORTS (and all of the SNG) requires. We are literally talking about a name in a list of other names in The Sporting Post and I'm not convinced that the S&B source will have anything other than a name on a scorecard. As I say, I know it requires a little more nuanced thought than "did he play a match", but that's the level of thought we really need to be working at you know. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By proving that he played in a match the sources guarantee that the subject meets WP:NCRIC. Major league baseball articles have the same criteria. If a player has an at-bat, or plays a position for 1/3 of an inning, or pitches one pitch from a major league mound, they meet the criteria for notability. That's because of "completeness". For many sports everyone who has played at a certain level - in baseball, for instance, it's playing in a Major League game that passes the bar - is Wikipedia-worthy simply because the encyclopedic roster of all-time major league baseball players is only completed by universal inclusion. And who knows, maybe this guy just used one name. Chitty. Like Pelé, or Rivellino, or many others. Chitty. The legend grows. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • From WP:SPORTBASIC - the underlying criteria that all SNG should be based on:
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. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics).
Chitty doesn't come close to meeting that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or merge to (a single sentence in) any relevant article. This fails even the lowest interpretation of GNG, and failing GNG so completely matters, because if you can't pass GNG, then you can't actually write a decent encyclopedia article. This article fails WP:WHYN: it is not a subject about which enough verifiable information can be found to write an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate, all-inclusive database with a separate record for each person who can be documented to have ever played one game. Think about what's being defended here: The thoughtless "Keep per NCRICKET" votes are asking us to have a completely separate, stand-alone page for someone about whom almost nothing is known, or will ever be known. We literally don't even know whether "Chitty" is his first name, last name, nickname, or only name. This is not a suitable subject for a proper encyclopedia article. Should this player be in Wikipedia somewhere? Sure. Should this player be on a separate, stand-alone page? No. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I do like the fallacy of "only this, this and this is known about him". Yes, at this stage. But until a few days ago R. N. Lee (as he appears on ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive) was just a mystery, just some initials. A few hours of research and piecing together later and the mysterious R. N. Lee turns out to be the bastard child of a millionaire merchant, real name Richard Napoleon Lee. In otherwords, culling these articles is the wrong way to go. New information might exist and has not yet been stumbled about, or will appear in the future. StickyWicket (talk) 19:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it's a sourced stub. The page is acceptable for Wikipedia because it uses Arthur Haygarth's work as a source. It is a stub, per WP:STUB, a type of article allowed in Wikipedia. Editor's calling for deletion are disregarding both WP:CRIC and the acceptance of stubs in the encyclopedia, each a reason to keep the page. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:14, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless en.wiki has overnight changed it's motto towards storing of every random piece of sourced information existing in this universe (and other parallel verses, too:-)), I fail to find any remote relevance of your posture. I guess some things don't change and it's the same dubious (and irrational) process wonkery, as I saw at the Meher baba AfDs. Try to retrieve a source that provides significant coverage to the subject and mention it over here. It will convince far many folks to alter their !votes than what you are currently doing to achieve the same goal. ∯WBGconverse 12:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping this page is for the completeness of the subject, which seems the goal of WP:CRIC and other sports, including the baseball guideline mentioned above. He played in a first-class match, he's notable. This is cut-and-dried. In addition you are now getting personal, calling me irrational and including an insulting edit summary, and I'm mentioning this because it isn't assuming good faith, which is a pretty important part of Wikipedia. As for sourcing, as mentioned several times, Haygarth is a perfectly acceptable source. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Haygarth is not an in depth source - which is what we require. It's a trivial mention by using his name in scorecards. If he were one of the biographies (here's a hint: he's not) then I'd be more than happy with Haygarth. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In voting to delete this article I am not asking to remove the info from WP. I am, instead, stating that the meager and apparently insignificant data cannot justify an entry by itself. The info should be included in pertinent pages, and if more secondary sources mention it in the future, then, reopen the entry for him. Regardless of what WP:CRIC would say, the entry simply does not pass the chief index: WP:GNG, even with the vagueness of these guidelines. The article has no significant secondary source, no legitimate connection to other WP pages, and the editors did not even make the effort to justify its existence. The single Haygarth’s citation cannot warrant its notability either. I have neighbors with plenty of more in-depth and more citations than that and we would never think of writing an entry for them in WP.  After observing the support, I have been tempted to change my vote to Keep just because it seems the community wants it. But doing so would just make it hard for me to justify other Delete votes in the future. Caballero/Historiador ⎌
    If it helps, I've been tempted to change my !vote from keep to delete. I prefer GNG to SNG, but can't get away from the defition of WP:N as it stands. Anyway, as it stands, our uncertain !votes rather cancel each other out, so that's something at least... Harrias talk 17:44, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @Harrias: They do not cancel anymore as of this moment, but that should not be the point. We should vote for what we think is correct. In regards to WP:N, I read it as a way to keep relevant information in WP, and Chitty seems like relevant to me, but not in the form of a single stand-alone article. There are more useful and effective ways to keep him here, I think. Caballero/Historiador ⎌
  • Delete While the topic meets the NCRICKET allowance for presumed notability, it is clear that there are going to be no more sources forthcoming to flesh out this article, and even if more did end up coming, we're talking the loss of one line of text, easily recreated when better sources are shown. Both the GNG and the subject-specific notability guidelines are not guarantees of having an article, but presumptions, meaning that they can be challenged as this AFD is doing. If there was more extensive signs of a longer career, that might be reason to keep, but this is a case we should not have an article just because. --Masem (t) 18:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the problem with most of the below average players who pass the SNG guideline for playing single game or having single award, but the only source for them is either statistical tables or tweet-size profile as well as coupled with misunderstanding of SNGs as absolute defence for inclusion. We have to understand all SNGs are just guidelines to weed out the obvious non notable. After a subject passes that, then they must be subjected to further scrutiny and if found to lack non trivial multiple sources that can help to write objective article on them then they're still non notable irrespective of so called playing so so professional or whatnot. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WhatamIdoing, who said it more concisely and eloquently than I could have. Ajpolino (talk) 21:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the WP:CRIN wars return. My position is still the same. WP:GNG is obviously not met (the reference is trivial and it's unlikely others exist), but "notability" is neither one of the five pillars nor one of the three core content policies. The content is verifiable (to the extent that any historical content is verifiable), and the WP:SNG is met. I have discussed and proposed changes to the WP:CRIN standard for first-class cricketers, but none of those have found consensus. Wikipedia also serves as a specialized almanac; having exhaustive listings of players (even those players who do not otherwise meet notability guidelines) can serve a purpose. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:12, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—a SNG only provides a rebuttable presumption that notability should be satisfied under WP:GNG, but in this case, barring any new sources, that presumption has been rebutted. Imzadi 1979 → 05:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete SNG is best thought of as a shortcut for GNG not a replacement. Power~enwiki points out that WP:N isn't a pillar or core content policy but it is an incredibly important guideline and deserves some deference. This is one of the exceptions to the presumption of notability that the SNG gives - exceptions that I think are important for maintaining some level of community support for SNGs in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article is not a biography. It is in fact a record of one player's performance in one match. If that principle were applied to Wilfred Rhodes as the most extreme case, there would be well over a thousand articles about each of his match performances. As someone suggested earlier, the solution here must be to include Chitty in a list of Surrey players. I would, incidentally, question the status of the match because, by definition, a first-class match is eleven a side. This one was fourteen against twelve. It is debatable, therefore, if Chitty was a first-class player. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 05:30, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Let me be clear that I would switch to "Keep" if any source emerges that provides biographical detail allowing for even a very brief biography to be written. If deleted, I support recreation if such a source is discovered. Special notability guidelines exist (with one rigorous exception for academics) to serve as a quick shortcut or rule of thumb for evaluating whether or not the topic of an article is likely to pass the General Notabilty Guideline. This speeds deletion evaluation but there are always exceptions. This is such an exception. Passing a SNG is not a 100% guarantee that an article must be kept, but rather a short-term proxy for an in-depth search for significant coverage in reliable sources. In this particular case, we lack any knowledge about this person other than a one word moniker, and a single scoreless 1800 match appearance. Surrey county cricket teams says the the current team in Surrey was organized in 1845; and the concept of First-class cricket was formalized in 1895. There is no information about the team in the article so how do we know that this was even a match at the highest level? We don't by reading the article. This is not at all an indication that Haygarth is not a reliable source. I can pull any good nonfiction book off my shelves at random. Such a book might provide solid evidence of the notabilty of one, several or many topics. But there will inevitably be passing mentions of many other topics, and those passing mentions do not establish notabilty. All we know of Chitty is an exceptionally brief passing mention and that is insufficient for establishing notabilty or justifying a Wikipedia biography. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:42, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Cullen328 is spot on when he asks: There is no information about the team in the article so how do we know that this was even a match at the highest level? We don't by reading the article. The match is described there as first-class but, as I said above, it was very unusual because of the fourteen to twelve odds. I have access to Scores & Biographies and it is recorded on page 279. The team names are Fourteen of England and Twelve of Surrey. Chitty is twelfth of the Surrey twelve. There certainly were first-class matches and county teams from Surrey long before 1800. If this had been an eleven-a-side match it would without a doubt be first-class, but played to odds it must more likely have been to settle a private wager and should be seen as some kind of exhibition game. Reading what Cullen says about the notability guidelines, it seems to me that Chitty would only pass the cricket SNG if that match is definitely first-class. Even if he does pass that, there is no way that a surname on a single scorecard can be said to justify a biographical article because the GNG is emphatic, as I read it, that the topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Haygarth is certainly an independent reliable source but can anyone seriously claim that the coverage is significant? Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 10:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be fair, I have done some work on the article to include all of the additional information that has been discussed in this case. The article now has a couple of paragraphs instead of a single sentence but it remains a very brief report of one player's performance in one match that might not have been first-class. It is not a biographical article. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 10:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This looks more like an encyclopedia article now than the exercise in stamp-collecting that it previously was. As you say, though, it's still not a biographical article because the sources come nowhere near justifying it. I'm also a little skeptical of the last paragraph as it looks like a comment about the notability guideline. I've previously protested editor-facing footnotes used to defend these trash articles so it would be a little hypocritical not to voice a concern now. Reyk YO! 12:10, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Reyk, I see what you mean. It was a leading comment, actually expressing an opinion, so I've removed it. Thank you for pointing it out. Reading your last sentence, it sounds as if these miniature articles are a real problem. I only came across this one because I was reading the cricket project page and followed a link. Are there many more like it? Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It now reads as an attempt to hide the fact that there is no secondary-sources (WP:NOR). If I would be a Cricket historian, I would find it interesting and dig deeper into it, and perhaps write an article on the subject. And then, the name would justify an article in WP. Caballero/Historiador ⎌
  • Delete does not pass any reasonable notability standard.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note the baseball-specific notability guidelines were not historically intended to provide completeness, as has been indicated above. From the inception of the sports-specific notability guidelines, the consensus was not to set a lower bar than the general notability guideline, but to defer to it. In many discussions since, this has been affirmed. Specifically for baseball, the consensus view is that the criteria are set at a level where it is highly likely that the general notability guideline can be met. (I think there has been instances of MLB players whose articles were deleted where virtually nothing was known about them to help uncover any sources, thereby failing GNG, but I cannot recall their names.) isaacl (talk) 06:34, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The key policy here is WP:ATD which states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page ... Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists." Some good improvements have been made to the page in the course of discussion per WP:HEY and so we see that such improvement is feasible and so the page should be kept for further development. WP:N is only a guideline and so is weaker than this policy, but, in considering the notability issues, it is clear that WP:NCRIC takes precedence over WP:GNG per the legal principle lex specialis derogat legi generali. The detail about the number of players in the game is irrelevant because, when first-class cricket was formally defined in 1947, its formula was explicitly not retrospective and so the status of earlier games was not changed. The game in question was clearly of top quality, being from an era when the county was so strong ... that Surrey frequently had to contend against Fourteen of England.. Andrew D. (talk) 07:49, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes cricket notability standards, and now borderline WP:GNG now with two historical sources and a scorecard, passing WP:V. When I first saw the article, I didn't vote, but would have voted delete, but now am giving a benefit of the doubt to the SNG and due to the historical nature of the encyclopedia entry. (As an aside, how many articles do we have about sportspeople from over 200 years ago?) SportingFlyer talk 09:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    SportingFlyer, GNG?! I can only wonder as to why we did not add the remaining details of the match?! I mean, the details of the captain and the entire team (with whom Chitty ought have coordinated) shall be added.They are quite important to our understanding of the gentleman.Puffing up an article..... ∯WBGconverse 09:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Clearly a contextual borderline call - Haygarth is clearly a good source, and the Cricket Archive footnote makes it clear the match was covered in contemporary articles of the time. SportingFlyer talk 10:15, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought this was a biographical article about a chap called Chitty? Not an article about the match. Which would come under a different part of NSPORTS which, iirc, suggests that not every match should be be considered notable. Or am I missing a distinction which is important? And, if so, do we have any other sources on Chitty - Haygarth and the Sporting News are not in depth sources about the bloke at all and so are not suitable sources to build a biography around. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:00, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a biographical article on a chap named Chitty - but the fact the match was covered in sources not referenced in the article allows me to give a benefit of a doubt on WP:NEXIST. There's less about Chitty than say Moonlight Graham, but there's no reason not to have information on the one event which conveys notability. SportingFlyer talk 23:02, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer: with regards to the number of articles, in the category English cricketers of 1787 to 1825 we seem to have around 724. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An SNG is just a guide that sources may well exist to establish notability, they are not meant to give an article a free pass at AfD. In this case there is simply not enough information available to justify a standalone article on this person. Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:12, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NCRICKET, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept, and all of WP:NSPORTS is explicitly secondary to the WP:GNG. A single line in a stats table doesn't deserve an article, it deserves a single line in a stats table. Even if consensus somehow determines that this article passes our inclusion policies, common sense should dictate that we should delete it or merge it to the team article per WP:IAR. --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 16:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, haven't looked at this page or Chitty's page for a few days, and am glad to see the article expanded. I hope the closer isn't underwhelmed by the delete comments here, and remembers that the page passes WP:NCRICKET which is all they need to know. Randy Kryn (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Translation: closer please note, I disagree with the delete opinions, therefore disregard them. Reyk YO! 17:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Passing WP:NCRICKET does not mean that an article must be kept, per the disclaimer at the top of WP:NSPORTS. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE      ) 19:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, that's incorrect. The WP:NSPORTS page says emphatically that "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Note that it uses the word or not the word and It also makes it fairly clear that it's a rough "rule-of-thumb" and that there's no necessity to delete. As the whole thing is just a guideline which is explicitly loose and open to exceptions, it's much weaker than a policy like WP:ATD. Andrew D. (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • This sentence has been discussed numerous times on the talk page as I've tried to get it to be changed. However the consensus view is that the sentence is not providing guidance on how to determine if the standards of having an article are met (that is, English Wikipedia notability); it is stating that the article must include citations to reliable sources. Thus it isn't enough to assert that the subject passes one of the sport-specific criteria; a source must be provided. Deference to the general notability guideline remains the consensus position of WP:NSPORTS, as has been affirmed every time it is discussed. 01:37, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
          • The page has reliable sources and meets WP:NCRIC. It can have critics, and those who think there is more to it than that and want to delete the page, but the present language upholds the keeping of this long-standing article. The only way to change its nobility, which is established, and its passing of the NCRIC language, which it does, is to change the language. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge This appears to be the case of a subject that arguably meets the notable criterion, yet it is doubtful that the article will ever be expanded beyond (to paraphrase) "Chitty was a cricketer who participated in this one game." There already exists a list List of English cricketers (1787–1825), into which the sparse information we have on this person can be merged. To accomplish that, the list should be converted into a table, which offers at a glance each player's team & floruit. In fact, a brief survey of this list shows at least three more cricketers whose article consists of little more than a single sentence -- & should also be merged into this list.

    IMHO, there is no point in having separate articles on these poorly known cricketers, ignoring that they are sportsmen. We face this problem in many other areas, for example in an area I've been working on for a couple of years, Republican & Imperial Roman consuls. For some of these otherwise notable people, they are, as Ronald Syme said of one, "a name and a date": in these cases, I have been content to simply leave them as a name in a larger list. I honestly fail to see how Wikipedia helps its readers by having skimpy little stubs of a sentence or two about these men which will remain for all intents & purposes skimpy little stubs. If anything, having separate articles suggest to readers that there is more information available about the subject, however Wikipedians have not had the manpower or access to known resources to add this missing material to the article. If anything, it would add value to identify these "permanent stubs" & find ways to merge their content into related, more general, articles. -- llywrch (talk) 04:16, 10 October 2018 (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/Chitty_(cricketer)&oldid=1073182057"