Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Battersbee

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. There's a an obvious consensus in the keep camp and the nominator has withdrawn the nomination. I feel that the sole editors' concern on the delete site has been discussed elsewhere throughout this delete discussion. (non-admin closure) Dusti*Let's talk!* 00:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Battersbee[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Thomas Battersbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 19:02, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please forgive me for not adding external links and references to this article - I'm amazed that it appears to have been untouched in terms of content in the ten years since I created it! Bobo. 19:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - The article subject clearly passes WP:N and WP:CRIN, WP:GNG is irrelevant in this case as the subject passes WP:N. Bobo. 19:57, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy to withdraw this proposal now it has references. Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. This was a bad habit of mine back when I was creating these articles in great haste! If you find any more like this that I have created, please notify me before sending them to AfD, they are easily fixable. Bobo. 20:54, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral:*Weak delete: Only two references from same source behind a paywall and not marked as such by reasonable citations. One first class appearance for Kent scoring 13 runs ... is this really notable and deserving of an article ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC) ... I'll remove the delete as he seems a substitute for a notable match after willes walked off angrily though the article doen't say this.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As per the notability guidelines, yes. If you have problems with these notability guidelines, please raise them elsewhere. Feel free to come up with different guidelines which fit your knowledge of the sport and general practices on Wikipedia. Bobo. 21:11, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I observe the WP:CRIN guidelines indicate: N.B.: Judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing a senior player, team, venue or match in historical rather than statistical terms.. I see no evidence of that and not helped by a poor quality citation highly subject to linkrot which may be assembling statistics.21:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
If you have issues regarding the secondary sources which we have been using for the last 15 years, please raise them in the appropriate place - a single AfD article is not going to change this issue.
Of course, if you have qualms relating to the specific info given in such sources, which you can cite via the use of alternative, more reliable sources, feel free to raise them as well. Bobo. 21:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well I IAbot'd the article and the dude was a substitute cos Willes round armed and left the ground in high dudgeon (whatever that means) ... which is a bit better than the stats info otherwise described. However [1] implies he played for Marylebone Cricket Club also in 1831 so I'm a little dubious about some accuracies. Overall this seems a case of pulling stats. I've got enough on my plate so I'm disengaging this and leaving it for others.
  • Keep. This passes current WP:CRIN inclusion guidelines as the player has played at the highest domestic level. Please check CRIN before nominating! StickyWicket (talk) 22:23, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Admittedly this article was still unreferenced when it was sent to AfD. I have since done so. Although, AA, if you find any other of my article creations, especially from 2009 or earlier (isn't it suspicious how people randomly stumble upon these articles after 10 years...) which do not have references, please assist with this. Indeed, there are still dozens of Test cricketers without any citations. Bobo. 22:26, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to link to the relevant CI link too - here. This will please the equally vocal ONESOURCE folk... Bobo. 23:00, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'd have more sympathy if this Carlaw [3] was being used as a biographical source rather than pulling statistics which as I have said above is not my reading of the guidelines. We continually have a single source, wasn't this in a newspaper or something? Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:05, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel ONESOURCE is an issue rather than CRIN, then please fix this before voting for something on non-existent criteria - except you do not believe this of course, you are purely voting delete on the basis of IDONTLIKEIT. If you "do not believe a subject is notable" despite him passing insultingly basic universal notability criteria, and now being appropriately sourced - then please attempt to get these notability criteria changed through the appropriate channels.
While we're here, can someone please add a reference to his Cricinfo profile here? This will also help to back up our first source, which, as we have needed to point out to people over and over, are independently compiled from and of each other. As I've said above, I'm behind the times in knowing how these things are referenced. Bobo. 04:13, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The concern is this is simply a pull from statistics which I read as against the guideline. I do observe Roundarm bowling and John Willes (cricketer) and my comment in an earlier reference indicate the key match may have had some signficance and if that is verified and ideally linked one might see more encyclopedic value. I also am concerned Battersbee's contribution to the match result may just be over-emphasised to non-cricketers for that matter. I know WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP but I need at least some confirmation of what I think I see. Cricket is not particularly my game, but I think I see more re-hashed statistics here than article love. I suppose we do have similar rules for locomotive classes on trains though so I'd better shut up.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:NCRIC, having played in a first-class match. I suspect there's more coverage on his school career than his cricket career, that could have been covered in newspapers at the time. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:27, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the deleting user in question claims that he was sending schoolmasters up for deletion that he felt did not meet criteria. Not only was the fact that he was a schoolmaster not cited after the extra information was added - which I have now removed - but this obviously bears no weight upon his notability in other areas. I know many schoolmasters but none is actually on Wikipedia... Bobo. 08:55, 28 May 2019
    Just to note he appears to have run his own school the "Chislehurst Academy" so more like a modern headmaster than a teacher. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Satisfies notability but if it's going to stay more content should be added. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:24, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you can locate, add, and sufficiently cite this extra content yourself, please feel free to do so. Saying "there is a problem" without being able to suggest a workable solution to the problem is pointless. Bobo. 19:10, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're clearly devoted to Thomas so you should do it. Finish what you started :) MaskedSinger (talk) 19:41, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: In terms of notability his apparent use as a substitute for Vinnes is excellent however it seems incompatible with Laws of Cricket and at odds with Substitute (cricket); the latter indicating Substitutes are generally not listed in the official squad list, unless if they were in the starting XI for other games in the wider squad. which might invalidate Battersbee for notability; but thereagain there may be an edge of doubt he was substitute, so I am not sure if he should be in or out.Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - at this point in the history of cricket the criteria for a match being later judged first-class are massively subjective anyway. There are all sorts of example of matches which would never be classed as such if an objective set of criteria were used, so it's hardly surprising that Battersbee is considered to have played a fc match - things are pretty fast and lose and it often seems to come down to whether or not a scorecard exists and whether something interesting happened in the match.
As for notability, this strikes me as an example of notability being inherited from Willes and the bowling incident - which is famous - more than anything else. It's questionable whether Battersbee should have his own article on the grounds of notability, but there's little chance that this would ever be deleted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 (talk) 18:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, fails to meet the WP:GNG; does not have any significant coverage. All the sources provided are mere statistical lists, or inherited notability from the Willes incident. Harrias talk 20:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on his role of running his own school rather than cricket. MilborneOne (talk) 21:05, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article does not say he ran his own school, or did anything significant as a teacher. Rathfelder (talk) 09:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you sure unless you think "Chislehurst Academy" is not a school. MilborneOne (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2019 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Thomas_Battersbee&oldid=1073214151"