Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Slingsby

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 redirect‎ to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#S. ✗plicit 13:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

John Slingsby[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)

WP:NOTDATABASE - little information exists, that which exist is a line in an external database which WP simply repeats. Nothing appears to exist which shows why this person was notable. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and England. JMWt (talk) 10:46, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At worst this is a clear redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825), but I'll note immediately that the Cambridge source notes that his death, presumably, was noted in the Gentlemen's Magazine and also references another source. We're headed into NEXIST territory here - chances are as well that as a clergyman that there is a reasonable chance that other sources also exist. I've no idea how much detail Haygarth includes on him - we'd need an IP to come along and check for us probably. I'm not necessarily unhappy with a redirect - more detail can be added to the table - but I'd like to see what else we can find first - he'll also be in the Eton Register, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:58, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I doubt a thorough WP:BEFORE has been conducted here, per BST there are likely to be contemporary sources on this guy. StickyWicket (talk) 20:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We need RS that can be verified WP:V. Not ones that you postulate exist and therefore show notability. JMWt (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Verification isn't a problem - we know that he existed and what he did. WP:NEXIST is a reasonable call at this point given the references in the Ac Cam source that wjemather dug out and the fact that he was a clergyman which sometimes means we get half decent biographies - and it does rather depend on what exactly it says in Haygarth: is there a biography of him or does it simply list him on a scorecard? I won't have a chance to hit some archives on this for a little while and can't access Haygarth, but it's possible something might pop up - but I don't think there's any doubt that there will be sources there. The Gents Mag is sometimes accessible online - have you checked the ref that Ac Cam has on him from there? Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:02, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting your knowledge. I'm saying that without being able to look at them, we can't tell if they show notability. Not every person that went to Eton is notable, not every clergyman is notable, not everyone who has a write-up in Gentleman's Magazine is notable. Unless we look at the sources, how can we possibly know what they say - they may in fact be a passing mention. JMWt (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant volume of The Gentleman's Magazine is available via Google Books ([1]). In the "clergy deceased" section, it contains the exactly same simple one-line death notice that was published in various newspapers at the time; nothing more. Other newspaper mentions are trivial (ordination listing, involvement in an old Etonians vs Gentlemen of England cricket match, his children's marriage announcement, etc.). Given what I've managed to find, I really don't see any merit to the claim/optimism that sources with significant coverage exist elsewhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:05, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't see this - distracted by the list of 1,200 articles... Thanks for finding the source - yes, I agree, we're looking at a redirect here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#S For now I'll go with redirect on this one unless something significant is dug up that suggests a GNG pass while AfD is going on. Certainly shouldn't be deleted though with a clear redirect in place per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:59, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Per my comment above, lacks significant coverage and these is no reason to believe such coverage exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:09, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825).Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825)#S as a valid WP:ATD. If significant coverage is found at a later point in time, then and only then can this article be restored from the redirect, but from the conversations above, looks like significant coverage is not known to exist. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2023 (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.