Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darby (Cambridgeshire cricketer)

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 redirect. Consensus here that the articles don't independently meet notability criteria to warrant a standalone article. I've gone ahead and performed all the redirects, any content missing that needs merging can be done from article history. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:38, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Darby (Cambridgeshire cricketer)

[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)

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In these cases, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Given the era in which the subjects played (1830s and 1840s), it is extremely unlikely research will ever discover more. (Possible merge/redirects at List of English cricketers (1826–1840) or List of Cambridge Town Club and Cambridgeshire cricketers, though note that a lot of links from the latter lead to the former.) Harrias ^talk 08:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 08:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 08:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Harrias ^talk 08:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Redirect to relevant lists. I would go along the lines of:

Darby, Duke, Sprig and Salamoni to List of English cricketers (1826–1840) - which already has suitable detail in for each case

Ward to List of English cricketers (1841–1850) - which needs to be worked on. I hope to get to this list some time in the northern Autumn

I'm surprised that I didn't propose a merge on each of them when I was working on the 1826–1840 list - maybe it was on my to-do list. This is consistent with the treatment of Chitty - as detailed at Talk:Chitty (cricketer) which has a link to the relevant AfD and to a follow up discussion (which can be found at the archive of the closing admin) In cases such as these - brief biographical information only, only very limited matches played etc..., this seems like a suitable compromise that has tended to be accepted by a range of editors. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all or redirect all as above. They don't meet the sport-specific criteria and none of the coverage is significant enough to warrant GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all as above. These persons may be qualified for listing in Wikipedia, but they are not identifiable enough to warrant having separate articles about each of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:13, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These articles have too little detail to justify seperate articles. Everything known can be covered on some list somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect all to the relevant lists, as suggested by Blue Square Thing. As has been pointed out numerous times, these aren't even really biographies. They're score cards, and diluting this information over hundreds of unexpandable microstubs is a disservice to the reader. Lists are a superior option. Reyk _YO! 19:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Blue square thing, we will never know enough about these people to warrant separate articles Seasider91 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect but maintain categories, if possible. StickyWicket (talk) 08:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all or redirect all per others. first name and details of birth and death unknown and unknown handedness batsman whose bowling style is unknown is not what readers would expect to read in a biography. Dee 03 04:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. WP:CRIN states "Judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing a senior player, team, venue or match in historical rather than statistical terms". These article are sourced only to statistical tables with no significant coverage. Fails WP:GNG. ----Pontificalibus 10:25, 18 August 2019 (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.