Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Jackson (Leicestershire 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 keep. causa sui (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article states that Jackson played major cricket, which when this article was created may well have been correct. A look on CricketArchive shows the player has not played any major cricket (for Jackson it would be first-class cricket), so it seems the status of the matches he played in has been downgraded, meaning he no longer meets WP:CRIN. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep - I'm not an expert on this period, but I know that the line between "major" and "minor" matches this far back can be difficult to draw. The fact that these three matches were all two innings, two day affairs suggests that they were reasonably significant. I believe that Nottingham, against whom he played for Leicester, was one of the strongest clubs around at this time. Also see Leicestershire and Rutland Cricket Club, suggersting that Leicester had a fairly high status. And the other two matches were against MCC at Lord's, which gives them a certain cachet. JH (talk page) 09:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appreciate that major cricket is difficult to define, but cricket archive is not the sole authority on cricket statistics. If we have RS that says he's notable (we do) cricket archive's lack of mention of him is not a conclusive reason for deletion, or we fall heavily into POV and OR territory. --Dweller (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a suitable list. These one line stubs of cricketers where little is known of the subject and there is no reasonable chance of expansion are becoming increasingly harder to defend. There is nothing in this article that could not be more succinctly placed in a list of cricketers. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting view. In line with the rest of Wikipedia, the cricket WikiProject has always argued that someone who is or was verifiably notable should have their own article. You seem to be saying the chap is notable but because the article is unlikely to grow it should be merged. Is that right? If so, I disagree - you're crystal balling and arguing against cornerstone policies. --Dweller (talk) 08:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the article will remain one sentence for the next two centuries, maybe more detail will be added tomorrow. Either way I don't think listyfying (Sp) short articles is the way to go. WP can never be complete so short articles aren't a problem. Szzuk (talk) 21:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My reading of WP:CRIN suggests notability. In addition to Leicestershire, the player represented the "Thursday Club" and that was evidently a forerunner of the Middlesex county team. I don't believe "first-class" status is applicable to games in that period but I think any player who took part in them deserves an article as the matches were major events at the time. The source is Arthur Haygarth's Score and Biographies which has much greater credibility than Cricket Archive. Having said that, has anyone been able to check the book for references to this player? --Mike^(chat) 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Think we have to assume good faith with the book ref. Szzuk (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JH has it right in the first comment, above, I think: the line between major and minor is difficult to draw. I worry a bit about a cricketer whose notability rests only on a reference in Haygarth. Haygarth himself wrote: "There is certainly one great mistake, or rather oversight. Which I made during the 50 years and upwards in which I was engaged on the Cricket Scores and Biographies, and it is this -- I preserved too many matches of an inferior calabre by far." (Quoted with these spellings and punctuations in his obit in Wisden 1904.) The ACS has been extending its "approval" of matches back from its previous arbitrary date of 1801 and now has a lot of 18th century matches that it considers "major"; in that Cricketarchive reflects the ACS research, it's a bit uncomfortable that approval appears not to have been given, so far at least, to the matches Jackson appeared in. Deleting him would be no great loss; recreating him in the event of a later ACS ruling would be no great difficulty. Johnlp (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Don't need to bother with the definitions - no guideline or policy exists, refs are fine. Szzuk (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2011 (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.