Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hooker (Kent 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. Cirt (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hooker (Kent cricketer)[edit]

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

An unknown cricketeer barely mentioned in some cricket archives with scant info and unknown achievements Mukadderat (talk) 17:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The subject was a first-class cricketer and as such meets the criteria laid down by WP:CRIN and thereby WP:ATHLETE. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ an odd case - there may be an indication that this individual could have satisfied notability guidelines, but it seems unlikely that references could be found that prove it (One of the refs listed in the article is an internal wiki-link). There would have to be some sort of reliable source that gives some meaningful information before this article would be acceptable. CitiCat^♫ 06:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As with the other cricket article, what reference is an "internal wiki-link"? And again, the two sources quoted are impeccable (Haygarth) and reliable (CricketArchive). Your comments seem to relate to another topic altogether. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My error, I was looking at the link to his Wikipedia page in the references, and overlooked the remainder of the citation. To clarify my position, if there were enough information to determine who the individual is if you wished to research the topic, I would vote keep, but I feel that as is the article is no better than writing an article entitled Person who played cricket for Kent in 1795. CitiCat^♫ 00:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I see more has been found on the individual, I now agree with Keep CitiCat^♫ 00:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:CRIN. Harrias (talk) 07:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 08:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This man played major cricket - the clincher for articles of players who played between 1697 and 1800. Bobo . 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:CRIN. I shall have a go at improving this article. SGGH ^ping! 09:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Aaroncrick (talk) Review me! 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: meets the Cricket project's requirements for notability by playing first class cricket. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:43, 13 December 2009 (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.