Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Basil Grieve


 * 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The result was speedy keep - nomination withdrawn. This was a slightly surprising result, but full marks to User:Boca Jóvenes for being the one to improve the article. . StAnselm (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Basil Grieve

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

WP:NCRIC states that "significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation". This person played in two matches in South Africa that, a decade later, were retrospectively recognised as Test matches. They were the only first-class matches he ever did appear in because he went on that tour to make the numbers up and probably, a frequent scenario in those days, because he was somebody's public school "chum". While significant coverage certainly exists for the vast majority of England Test players, in this case it does not and the article comprehensively fails WP:SPORTCRIT.

Part of the content, including the uncited sentence about wine merchandise, has been lifted from the Cambridge Alumni database which may or may not be reliable. Most of the second paragraph, however, is WP:OR which cannot be substantiated and is an opinion piece. Looking at other potential sources, CricketArchive as you would expect publishes the two match scorecards and a brief statistical summary of Grieve's involvement in them. ESPNcricinfo does the same but with a short comment about his "impact on the cricket world". This refers to his Wisden obituary which merely states: "(Grieve) died at Eastbourne on November 14, aged 53. Harrow XI, 1883, taking four wickets for 67 runs against Eton at Lord's. Member of MCC since 1885". The Harrow v Eton match is schools cricket and, like membership of MCC, not an indication of notability. I've also scanned Cricket: A Weekly Record of the Game for 1888 and 1889 but mentions of Grieve are brief inclusions in routine match coverage. In one place, however, it says he bowled using an underarm action, which was unusual at that time. I've checked various books in my possession and can't find any references to him.

Grieve has a line in List of England Test cricketers which is more than adequate for such a historical anomaly. Although he played in what are recognised as Test matches, he is in fact a classic example of someone who just happened to be involved and did nothing then or at any other time to warrant attention, hence the almost complete lack of coverage. I wouldn't oppose a WP:ATD but I think, in a case like this, it might be inappropriate because there is no possible chance of useful coverage being discovered. His line in the Test cricketers list says everything that needs to be said. BoJó &#124;  talk  UTC 13:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket.  BoJó  &#124;  talk  UTC 13:47, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: he appears to have an entry in Christopher Martin-Jenkins' World Cricketers: A Biographical Dictionary (Oxford University Press, 1996) but I can't access it. StAnselm (talk) 14:58, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have that book either, but I have seen it. Many of its entries are necessarily brief but I know several people who can probably access it and I'll try and check it out. Thanks. BoJó  &#124;  talk  UTC 15:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't think it matters that the "England cap" was awarded retrospectively, or that the rest of his cricket career was less than distinguished: he still represented his country at the highest international level and in the modern way of allocating cap numbers, he's an integral part of the sequence. It doesn't matter either that this is never likely to be more than a stub: as someone has written on a discussion elsewhere, around 50 per cent of WP articles are stubs, many capable of expansion, some not. I think also that it is wrong to think always of articles as standalone pieces, surviving or perishing on their individual merits. There have been more than 700 England Test cricketers over 145 years and the fact that they all have an article makes for a completeness that is, to my mind, encyclopedic; we should be able to tolerate one (or maybe a few more than one) sketchy, stubby article for the sake of this completeness. Johnlp (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As he played international cricket for England. Has entries in The complete who's who of test cricketers, World cricketers : a biographical dictionary and England : the cricket facts Piecesofuk (talk) 15:34, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Appears to be coverage out there, especially in offline sources, suggesting a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. The entries in the two CMJ books are identical and the Hayes book provides only a brief statistical summary which equates with that on CricketArchive. Basically, then, we know his name and dates; he went to Harrow and Cambridge; he joined MCC and he became a wine merchant. But, he went to South Africa with Warton's team and played in two historic Test matches. Extra information found is that he bowled underarm and that he and Bowden remained in South Africa after the tour ended. I've rewritten the article to encompass everything mentioned here and I now think the article should be kept. The point about completeness is convincing and it does seem that there is broad coverage in offline sources. Thanks to all who have contributed. BoJó  &#124;  talk  UTC 19:08, 11 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 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.