Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Page (MCC 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The result was Withdrawn by nominator

Page (MCC cricketer)[edit]

Delete nn sportsman. Only one single source attests to his existence, playing in two matches. Mayalld (talk) 15:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn Accept the view of others on notability (even if the article will never expand beyond this) Mayalld (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Passes requirements of WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN by having played in two first-class aka major cricket matches, first-class cricket being the equivalent of major league baseball, Premiership football, etc. Furthermore, the article quotes not one but TWO impeccable sources: Scores & Biographies and CricketArchive. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 15:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even one appearance in major sport is sufficient to pass WP:ATHLETE. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Meets WP:Athlete, two sources, no problem. Andrew nixon (talk) 15:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Both sources are simply reporting on a single original source (the scorecard) which bears the name "Page". With such scant information, it is impossible to conclude anything about this player. It is also unclear whether these were 1st Class matches from the sources. (1st class cricket as a term was invented long after these matches) Mayalld (talk) 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the first class or otherwise status has been established retrospectively for every match ever played, but that's not the point here. "Major" matches were the highest level of the game played at that time and as such, it's notable per ATHLETE. --Dweller (talk) 16:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:ATHLETE applies, even to 18th century players. Johnlp (talk) 16:08, 5 August 2008 (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.