Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Anguish


 * 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. Article has been expanded and improved since nomination. (non-admin closure) ASTIG️🙃  (ICE-T • ICE CUBE) 14:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Charles Anguish

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

probably not notable, no sources present Artem.G (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Probably keep - probably was notable as he appears to have been a member of the Anguish family which owned land across East Anglia. This blog source (so itself not suitable, but what it quotes is) says Charles Anguish alias Clarke (1769-97), born 13 February and baptised 15 March 1769; a noted early cricketer and member of the MCC, playing in forty major matches, 1788-95; Comptroller of Customs at Cape of Good Hope, 1797; died unmarried there, 25 May 1797; his obituary in the Gentleman's Magazine recorded that "he was a young man of abilities and of a good temper, but with so odd a cast of manners that he was perpetually on the brink of a quarrel, even with those who knew his intentions were quite harmless, and could make every allowance for his peculiarities";. Based on the job and the obituary (although he only made 32 appearances in fc matches). ATD exist if required.
 * e2a: also mentioned here and apparently in The Cricketer, which is available online (although it seems Ashley-Cooper got the fates wrong, obviously) and here possibly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * further e2a: CricketCountry has an article which adds a little more as well - I've had moments where I've been unhappy with that site as a source, but mainly because of hyperbole. There's none in this article; I think it'd help. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:12, 15 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete we have no sources rising to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I think there's just enough on him and him playing in 30 odd matches for a GNG pass. BST has found some sourcing on him and a more detailed dig with the information we have now would likely bring more. There is a suitable redirect at List of English cricketers (1787–1825) if it is deemed not enough for a GNG pass. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Again, no WP:BEFORE has been done. If the article has no sources, you tag it accordingly, not bring it to AfD. If the man played in 30+ first-class cricket matches, he was notable. The article needs development and it needs citations. This is yet another bad nom.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 22:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. 32 appearances at first-class level, so clearly a notable figure in the early days of cricket, and seemingly notable as a colonial figure in The Cape. This is an example where an article should be expanded, not deleted. StickyWicket (talk) 09:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Must admit I've been a bit confused over this one because the article says he played in 40 major matches but this discussion holds that he played in 32 first-class matches. I'm not sure what's meant by major matches because wouldn't they only have been first-class in those days, what with no limited overs or T20? Anyway, I was writing to one of my mates and I mentioned this. His reply has arrived and he says the 40 must be a mistake – Anguish did play in 32 first-class matches. I've got his source so I'll correct the article.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 10:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm guessing he probably played minor matches for a team which also had first-class status for some of their matches, and these minor matches being for a major team were considered major matches. Then when retrospective FC status was applied that number of major matches got reduced by 8! StickyWicket (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, . That could well be it. A bit like an EFL team playing against a non-league team, perhaps. Thanks. All the best.  NGS  Shakin' All Over 19:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Article expanded significantly since nomination, no valid rationale as it appears the WP:BEFORE was not done. NemesisAT (talk) 18:10, 21 April 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.