Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drew (Kent 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   keep. Cirt (talk) 19:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Drew (Kent cricketer)

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

An unknown amateur cricketeer barely mentioned in some cricket archives with scant info and unknown achievements Mukadderat (talk) 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The subject was a first-class cricketer and as such meets the criteria laid down by WP:CRIN and thereby WP:ATHLETE.  Jack | talk page 05:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete an odd case - there may be an indication that this individual could have satisfied notability guidelines, but it seems unlikely that references could be found that prove it (One of the refs listed in the article is an internal wiki-link). There would have to be some sort of reliable source that gives some meaningful information before this article would be acceptable.  Citi Cat   ♫ 06:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. You are not making sense.  Which reference is "an internal wiki-link"?  The sources stated are both reliable, especially Haygarth who is the most reputable source of all for 18th century cricket. Jack | talk page 20:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * My error, I was looking at the link to his Wikipedia page in the references, and overlooked the remainder of the citation. To clarify my position, if there were enough information to determine who the individual is if you wished to research the topic, I would vote keep, but I feel that as is the article is no better than writing an article entitled Person who played cricket for Kent in 1795.  Citi Cat   ♫ 00:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, but the article is a WP:STUB because we have have only found a limited amount of data so far. If and when someone finds more, the content will be expanded.  The important point is that he was a first-class cricketer and therefore he meets the criteria for WP:Notability as laid down in WP:CRIN and WP:ATHLETE.  The scale of the article at present is immaterial. Jack | talk page 05:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no argument over notability, however an article still has to have meaningful content. An article that says "A man with the last name Drew played cricket for Kent in 1795" does not really tell you anything of interest. I see there is a bit more information now, and hopefully the potential for further expansion.  Citi Cat   ♫ 05:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:CRIN. Harrias (talk) 07:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  -- - Spaceman  Spiff  08:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This man played major cricket - the clincher for articles of players who played between 1697 and 1800. Bobo. 08:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep a poor article, however the subject is notable per WP:CRIN. I'll take a stab at improving it. SGGH ping! 09:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for doing the match-by-match coverage which is a good idea for a small stub like this.  However, a lot of extra links were needed which I've now supplied.  Jack | talk page 20:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep: meets the Cricket project's requirements for notability per WP:CRIN. AustralianRupert (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2009 (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.