Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Bache

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). While there are assertions that sourcing must exist, it has not surfaced during this discussion and given his life span, unlikely a relist will help with that. The Keep voters also mostly express support for a redirect, or do not take issue with one. Since we have the redirect as a valid AtD, there is no reason to delete. This also preserves the attribution should sourcing turn up and this be spun back out. Star Mississippi 13:08, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bache[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, just played 11 matches Artem.G (talk) 08:57, 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)} 09:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 11 matches is quite a lot. CricketArchive claims he was an MP for Dumfries Burghs - which is also what his entry in the Eton School List says (although I can't find any confirmation of this elsewhere). Other sources suggest he was in the British Army (as a Cornet from 1833 - although I wonder if this is a different TOB) and The Northampton Mercury of 8 April 1843 tells us On the 1st instant, at the Pomfret Arms Towcester, Thomas Ogle Bache, Esq., of Rickmansworth, Herts, aged 47. He had been hunting with Lord Southampton's hounds, and complained of being ill on his return, and about half-past one o'clock on Saturday morning he died of apoplexy. A coroner's inquest was held on the afternoon of Saturday, before R. Weston. Esq., Brackley, and the jury returned a verdict of Apoplexy. and the Leamington Spa Courier 18 November 1843 is also helpful (see edit history). And that's just for starters. On those grounds I'd be tempted to Keep for now at least. At the very worst an ATD exists in the form of a redirect to List of English cricketers (1787–1825). Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:10, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Enos733 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Think I'm at keep at this current stage on this one. There seems to be some sourcing on him that suggests a GNG pass. If it can be confirmed he was infact a sitting MP then I'd be strong keep. If it is deemed not enough for notability List of English cricketers (1787–1825) is a suitable redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:26, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with reservations about the Dumfries Burghs MP claim because this name isn't listed. Could he have had a pseudonym or a change of name? I fail to see how not notable, just played 11 matches can be taken as anything other than a waste of time. Obviously, no BEFORE done. Again. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 22:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think he was an MP, I've searched high and low for any proof and think Eton College must have got confused somewhere along the line. That said, I am satisfied enough coverage exists to compliment his cricket career. StickyWicket (talk) 09:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I tend to agree about the MP bit - but then Eton's record on MPs is a bit dubious anyway... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! That's one to merit a place alongside Dan Stevens. Brilliant. NGS ^{Shakin' All Over} 10:19, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, for now We still need actual demonstrated coverage to show that he shouldn't be redirected. If CricketArchive says he was an MP and he wasn't, that doesn't bode well for its reliability as a source. SportingFlyer T·C 16:04, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly certain CricketArchive would be taking that from the Eton School List and would have no reason to doubt that. Given that a bunch of us have looked and can't see the connection, however, means we are doubting Eton's reliability. A bit like their recent "exam" results. I'll try to get to the article and add in what we can at some point: I think there's stuff there which will help a little. Whether it is quite enough is an interesting question. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the subject was an MP, then the subject would pass WP:NPOL and the discussion would come to a quick end. That said, it does appear that the claim is not verified (by a second independent source) and we are back to determining whether the subject passes WP:GNG. (I will note, I was not able to find anything supporting the MP claim.) -- Enos733 (talk) 23:38, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of the rumoured RS, fails WP:N. Springnuts (talk) 08:31, 23 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.