Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Bartholomew (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 delete. Daniel (talk) 00:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Bartholomew (cricketer)[edit]

[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)

Non-notable cricketer who fails to meet either NCRIC or GNG.

Did not play first-class cricket and very little else is known about him. No CricInfo profile (although there is a Robert Bartholomew who played once for MCC in 1872); his CricketArchive page refers to him as R Bartholomew and has him playing in three matches in 1750.

Ashley-Cooper (source can be found here - uses Flash; try searching) says that he ran the White Conduit tavern but "whose name, however, is not found in many matches of note" (p.67) and more or less repeats this in his three line biography which also tells us he died in 1766 (p.83). His name appears on three scorecards on p.68 but I can find no mention of him in other sources that deal with early cricket.

Buckley repeats Ashley-Cooper and the entire final paragraph of the article it speculation at best (the "it is not known..." bit gives it away - this is the usual attempt to link people with the same name that seems to have taken the author's fancy). The source for this paragraph is self-published, often unreliable and full of speculation like this.

So, we have three matches and a very brief biography that tells us he ran a pub. That's it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Is this similar to a batch of cricketers from the 1700s that were put up for deletion before? IIRC, the first-class status of those cricketers/matches was also in disupte. If this guy is in the same boat as those others, then delete. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: I'm not sure. I nomed this and this in December, which are similar, but I don't tend to do large numbers at a time. No FC cricket was played pre-1773, so there's no doubt about the status. I would have PRODed it, but PRODs get routinely removed on articles like this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was the example I was thinking of (might not have been the EXACT person), but a similar scenario. So yes to be clear, delete per your previous rationale and the one above. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Speculation removed (the article was originally about all the Bartholomews before being moved, but there seems to be no verifiable connection). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There may be enough to warrant mention in a list of Surrey cricketers, but there's entirely insufficient WP:SIGCOV for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing near anything even approaching significant coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:12, 28 January 2021 (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.