Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Horace Bates

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Horace Bates[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)

not notable, played 9 matches 200 years ago, nothing notable besides this fact Artem.G (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined towards Keep based on previous discussions at NSPORTS. Because he played for Kent sides there are some sources on him - which I've worked into the article. There's an outside changed I might be able to find a little more, although I doubt it. In the discussions which were had at NSPORTS over the last couple of years, the level of sourcing I've been able to put into the article has been accepted as being just about OK. But it is only just about OK and relies heavily on the Carlaw source. Given that Carlaw quotes - from somewhere - something about him, it's clear that he was described in some other source - whether that as Ashley-Cooper's book on Kent matches, Harris' History of Kent Cricket or Haygarth in Scores and Biographies I don't know - because Carlaw doesn't say. That lends some credit to the idea of keeping in this case - clearly there are other sources which described the player.

An ATD would be a redirect to List of Kent county cricketers to 1842, which I would suggest is probably the best alternative in this case. Given that obvious redirect candidates exist (and that a BEFORE search on "Horace Bates cricket" throws up the Carlaw source on the first page) I'm a little disappointed that this has come to AfD at all - wouldn't a merge discussion be more appropriate? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep BST has found a suitable amount of information on him for a GNG pass. There's a redirect as BST suggests if it is deemed not enough for notability, although with the sourcing now present I don't think this will be the case. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after good expansion work by BST. As for the nom, I would have though that playing nine first-class matches strongly suggests notability as a player. Was any BEFORE done? NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 22:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per what BST has found; I'm surprised that the nominator, who appears to be experienced, is using the fact he played matches over 200 years as a reason for deletion. StickyWicket (talk) 09:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I use 200 years as an indicator: if nothing significant was written about the subject, it can be said that nobody deemed it notable. I do think that a stub of one or two sentence with zero or one source shouldn't exist, there is no chance that such draft would be accepted at AfC. But maybe you are right, and as sports is not my topic I probably wouldn't nominate more such articles for deletion. Artem.G (talk) 09:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And you can't deny that after the nomination it was rewritten by knowledgeable editor, and looks like a real article now? AfD can be good not only for deletion but also for rescue, when somebody rewrites bad stubs and expands them significantly. I doubt it would be ever expanded without this nomination. Artem.G (talk) 10:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree - but please don't swamp us! It might be better to bring people up at the cricket project and give us a few weeks or months. Some of them are easy, others take much more work - the New Zealander that someone else has nominated just now, for example, is a real trawl through thousands of newspaper articles. Which is nice, but I have to go to work next week! Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Artem.G, we don't use AfD as a means of getting an article expanded. That end does not justify the means. There's something about this in policy but I can't find it at the moment. You need to read the WHOLE of WP:BEFORE to see what your responsibilities are as a prospective nominator. As BST has just said, one of the acts is to raise it with the creator or at the projects. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My bad, I really though that these several subjects were not notable enough for WP. Sorry for that, wouldn't happen again. Artem.G (talk) 11:31, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. @Artem.G: no need to apologise. With regard to cricketers from the 19th-century, especially the early part, it's not so much they may not have been deemed notable, it's that the publications which featured them either are lost, or have not been digitalised yet. I've been working on redlinks on List of Cambridge Town Club and Cambridgeshire cricketers and many of these players were undoubtedly celebrities of their time, quite notable as cricketers and personalities and the problem I have found is finding surviving sources for them. Many I have found things for, but others have been a struggle, but there can be little doubt in the 1830s–1860s, these guys were very famous and notable individuals, more so than say a Joe Weatherley of today, who has recent coverage but very few people outside of die-hard cricket fans would have heard of. StickyWicket (talk) 11:55, 17 April 2022 (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.