Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Colchin

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. Missvain (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Colchin[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)

PROD removed.

Totally non-notable cricketer who fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC. He is known to have played cricket, that's about it. The source (Ashley-Cooper) refers to him as John Calchin on p.83, but there is no indication whatsoever within it that he has a brother. The fact about being transported is verified, but thousands of men were transported and that doesn't make them notable of itself. His name then appears in two lists of players: one on p.53 and one on p.67 - neither add anything to what we know (you can review the source here - it requires flash and is odd - searching for Calchin will help) He is not mentioned at all as playing in a single-wicket match in 1748, despite our article telling us he did (p.52).

None of the matches he played in are considered first-class cricket so he fails WP:NCRIC spectacularly. This seems to have been part of an attempt by an editor to list every possible cricketer they could find in any source from the mid 18th century. Given that only one source has ever been presented to support the article, I have no idea why his name is spelled differently. CricketArchive (which does have an entry on Robin Colchin) has no entry for a John Colchin or any for a Calchin. There is no notability at all that comes anywhere close to meeting the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; per nom, this comes nowhere close to meeting GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:48, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Robert Colchin as he certainly played on his team and it appears that he was his brother. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examining the source given, Robert Colchin's brother is not named (ref. first recorded match, p.52; listed as "—, Robin") and our subject is referred to as "Calchin" not "Colchin" throughout, so the "believed to have been the brother" claim seems to be the belief of the article author, i.e. synthesis/original research. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no evidence in any source that they were brothers. This is pure conjecture by the author of the article based on similar names. Long Robin's brother is mentioned as bowling in a five-player a side match (top right on page 52) but there's no name and Calchin isn't mentioned in that match at all. There's no reason why Ashley-Cooper would not use his name and, given the write-up that Ashley-Cooper gives to Long Robin, there is no way that he doesn't mentioned that they were brothers if they were - and the brother he does mention (p.84) is named Robin. Why name Calchin on page 83 and then Robin as Long Robin's brother on page 84? Sorry, but this isn't close to a merge at all. WP:BEFORE got done in spades here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wholly non-notable in the broader context of a general global encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2020 (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.