Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellchambers (Surrey 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 delete.  Sandstein  10:09, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Bellchambers (Surrey cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Biography which fails to meet WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE or WP:NCRIC. Very limited biographical information from CricketArchive or Haygarth - essentially we know a surname existed on a single scorecard from 1768 and nothing else. The match is not considered to be a first-class cricket match, despite the article's claims, and the match was played by Caterham and Westerham not by Surrey. PROD originally contested on the grounds that there "some dispute about the status of these cricketers" - presumably on the basis that there is a claim on the article page that the match that was played in is considered first-class. CricketArchive - which is reliable for scorecards - makes it clear that this is not the case and there is no mention of the player on CricInfo. Without anything other than a surname and a single entry on a scorecard there's very little hope that the article will ever be a suitable topic for a biographical article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because each has also played one match which is not actually first-class and in each case only a surname is known. Each was also a contest PROD in the same circumstances:

Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:49, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Baby miss  fortune 13:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Baby miss  fortune 13:54, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays~! Baby miss  fortune 13:55, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:19, 26 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, and per similar articles and issues raised at the Cricket Project.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:15, 26 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. If we know nothing about this individual besides appearance in scorecards - then we're lacking INDEPTH SIGCOV.Icewhiz (talk) 17:14, 27 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete- No actual biographical information, and we don't even know these people's first names. The articles are also full of WP:OR: guesses as to the players' approximate birth dates and feeble attempts at manufacturing notability with all that "few players were mentioned by name back then" stuff. Reyk YO! 18:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom. I'm not sure how these have been able to sneak under the strict CRIN criteria for so long. StickyWicket (talk) 19:50, 31 December 2018 (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.