Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goodhew (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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) – Davey 2010 Talk 00:14, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Goodhew (Kent cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Is there really enough known about this guy to justify having his own article? All we know about him is that he played a few games of cricket. We don't even know his first name. I know we usually keep athletes, but why keep THIS one? Couldn't we at least find a single page to list all the last-name-unknown stubs by team and dates of activity? p b  p  13:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Reliability and sourcing at the level of this article is tricky as heck for historic players with little impact such as this one (particularly notable players such as Pilch, Felix etc.. are obviously much easier). A redirect to either Kent county cricket teams or List of English cricketers might be appropriate - in theory an article along the same lines as List of Kent County Cricket Club players could be written for pre-county club players, but that would require a better directory than I have available. I'm sympathetic to a redirect but I'd imagine others will defend this article as being notable because of his first-class matches. Incidentally, CricketArchive has him as only playing three first-class matches which is different to the article - I don't have access to scores and biographies of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, meets WP:NCRIC having played in matches that have been designated as first-class. There are several of these mononymous articles for early cricket history and I think for baseball too. What's important to realise is that many of these articles do have scope for improvement, it may just take some time before the research is done at a RS-level so that we can reflect it here. As an example that was on my watchlist today, Christopher Bethell-Codrington began life as Codrington (MCC cricketer) and took several years before it was expanded. I think it likely that, in time, Goodhew could be similarly expanded. Jenks24 (talk) 13:33, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. The player being cited in Scores and Biographies and it being agreed by CricketArchive he played in at least three matches rated first-class, is meaning he was a notable player. The article is in much need of expansion and improvement, it is true, but the player is most certainly meeting WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Those two sources being cited, there can be no denying reliability of sourcing. I am reading much about early cricket history and it being clear to me standards were very high, no doubt in my mind that Kent in 18th century is deserving of first-class status (but until just now I have not read of this player). I am assuming Scores and Biographies is calling a fourth match first-class, one that CricketArchive calls "miscellaneous", unless author made mistake with "four" instead of "three". Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  14:53, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Article says he played four first-class matches from 1789 and I am seeing in CricketArchive one "miscellaneous" match in 1789, this must be fourth match (or first of four) between Middlesex and London. There is footnote saying, "The Middlesex team may in reality have been representative of the Uxbridge club but most of the players did make a number of appearances in matches against quality opponents". My guess then is guessing a first-class rating in Scores and Biographies. I have friend who is owning that book so I can be checking it. Thank you. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  15:05, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have expanded the article. I am struggling with links as being unsure of what some of these old teams representing with no county clubs in English cricket then. Oldfield? A first-class team, but who and where were they? I am seeing also the games being played at Lord's but this cannot have been the Lord's where it is now, I am recalling that Thomas Lord had an earlier ground and I am not sure about linking that too. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  15:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Eureka! Oldfield Cricket Club is redirecting to Berkshire county cricket teams and Berkshire in 18th century a first-class county. That is something I have not been reading before. "Oldfield" it is properly "Old Field" and it is name of Berkshire ground. So confusing, but still first-class. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  16:00, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Well, hmmm. WP:NCRIC says he's presumed to be notable if he "has appeared... in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest... domestic level". Well I guess the source is reliable and "substantial" (whatever that means), and I guess the matches he appeared in are at the highest level for England at the time (I'm assuming that this is true). Still, even then, he's only presumed notable, that doesn't mean he definitely is notable. And if we don't even know your name, how the heck notable are you? "Presumptions" aside, you're not very notable if nobody has even bothered to keep track of your name, hm? How many of our articles on notable people begin "So-and-so was a notable [admiral, scientist, artist, whatever] and he was so notable that nobody even bothered to write down his first name"? Not many.


 * On the other hand, the purpose of WP:NCRIC is to let the sports completeists have their way and obviate the need for the very many long discussions we would have to have of we don't have a clear bright-line rule. In baseball we have a clear rule, one at-bat in one major league game and you're in, no need for case-by-case discussions. In American politics we have a clear bright-line rule, membership in any state legislature and you're in, no need for case-by-case discussions. This serves the Wikipedia.


 * All things considered, IMO there's no harm in having an exhaustively complete set of articles for people in certain athletic category -- we're not constrained by the cost of printing; and the Wikipedia is best served if we can avoid case-by-case discussions of these people; so I vote keep. Herostratus (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, Herostratus. Problem in early English cricket being a social one. Professional players were recorded by surname only in match scorecards. Thank you. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  15:54, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * In case it's of interest, we have approximately 40 MLB players with biographies where their given names are unknown. Jenks24 (talk) 16:17, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Right, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But contra my earlier point, there are notable people who we don't know their full names, if you go deep enough into history.


 * Still, if anyone wants an excuse to vote against this guy... the fact is that he's not notable. Absent special pleading from sports enthusiasts, there's no way on earth an unbaised person would come across this person and say "Well, here's someone who has made some small but not negligible impact on history so as to be worthy of note sufficient to excite the interest of the readers of general-purpose encyclopedia, so let's have an article on him along with our articles on generals and authors and explorers and famous athletes and so forth, and there's sufficient material here to make a short but useful article."


 * Any reasonable person must vouchsafe that this would not happen absent the special pleading. He's an utter nobody. For my part I accept the special pleading for the sake of peace and quiet and because we're not paper. It is special pleading though. Herostratus (talk) 16:20, 11 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NCRIC or discuss new rules which would affect every professional competitive team sport on Wikipedia. These discussions don't seem to come up when faced with an NHL, NFL, MLS, MLB, NBA player. Unless they do, of course. To "draw a line" regarding some kind of article merging several cricketers into one is a violation of NPOV. Bobo. 20:10, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * @Bobo. Hi, Bobo. NPOV is excellent point. To draw such a line is most certainly requiring a subjective view. I am reading WP:CRIN again and considering beauty of it being, it ensures an objective view. Thank you, Bobo. Regards,  Naz &#124;  talk  &#124;  contribs  08:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you Nazcheema. I have created several hundred articles for cricketers with just a single first-class appearance. Because we have *one* rule, just like every other project has *one* rule. And in the case of professional sport, that rule is exactly the same in all places. Bobo. 10:41, 12 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NCRIC and all the above.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
 * SNOW Someone please close this. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:34, 15 July 2016 (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.