Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Ledbetter


 * 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The result was delete all except those withdrawn by the nominator. — Kurykh  00:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Jim Ledbetter

 * – (View AfD) (View log)


 * There appears to be systemic bias in respect of several articles relating to the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians, a body that is notable in its own right but whose individual members are not notable unless they have achieved notability through other activities. It seems apparent that the creator of these articles is a member of the ACS committee acting via 195.50.93.237 and that one of the articles is about himself. BlackJack | talk page 11:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I am also nominating the following related pages because of apparent systemic bias and because none of these subjects have notability outside the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians:



--BlackJack | talk page 12:08, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete all. I don't know much about sports statisticians, but none of these people look notable to my untrained eye. Calliopejen1 14:09, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For information. This deletion page has been blanked by PatsyHendren who is believed to be the creator of these articles.  A warning has been placed on his talk page.  --BlackJack | talk page 14:35, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The organisation is notable (or at least borderline), but individual members and officers are not. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The fact that BlackJack &mdash; Wikipedia's premier cricket historian &mdash; is making this nomination is significant. My opinions:
 * Neutral on Philip Bailey (statistician) because I have heard of him in his Cricinfo context.
 * Merge ACS Statistician of the Year into Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians.
 * Neutral on Robert Brooke (statistician) per discussion below. (Added 21:49, 2 July 2007 (UTC)).
 * Delete all others.
 * Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions.   —Stephen Turner (Talk) 15:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete all. per Calliopejen1 --Bill.matthews 16:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all Nothing notable about these people. You dont gain notability by serving on a board of this magnitude Corpx 16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak delete all These statisticians worked for or volunteered for record keeping. As such, they are no more notable than those who volunteered for, or worked for, any other organization or company. Cricket is a notable sport, and the association which maintains records of it may be notable, but that does not percolate down to every worker. Billions of people are employed and/or volunteer to be on a board, without becoming encyclopedically notable. They would have had to have multiple and substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources, and the obituaries, personal websites, and links to the statistical association do not satisfy that. These articles fail WP:BIO. That said, the article were nicely written. Edison 16:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep for Bailey. Not very interested in the rest. Tintin 16:58, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. I have a lot of respect for any views expressed by both Tintin and Stephen Turner.  As it happens I have been a little uncertain myself about Philip Bailey because I have remembered that he is the statistician and record-keeper for both "Playfair Cricket Annual" and "Wisden Cricketers Alamanack".  As such, I think he is notable enough, but his article needs expansion.  Providing I am allowed to do so, I wish to withdraw the nomination in his case.  Having said that, I have no doubts at all about the other nominees.  --BlackJack | talk page 17:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * delete Ledbetter. However I think that at least Bailey, Brooke, Lodge and Vic Isaacs are genuinely notable. Lodge has had "proper" books (ie other than ACS publications) published, though this is not obvious from his article. (In fact most of these articles are weak on their subjects' non-ACS activities.) Isaacs was Hampshire scorer for over 30 years. Philip Bailey is one of the two people behind CricketArchive, which I think makes him notable. Robert Brooke edited the Cricketer Quarterly IIRC, and had a column in The Cricketer. I think that most of the others should go, but if Bailey and Brooke are to go then, to be consistent, so should John Leach (writer). OK, I wouldn't really be in favour of that. :) JH (talk page) 17:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. I would be in favour (but I know some people who wouldn't)!!  Seriously, I think a lot more information is needed about Brooke as my knowledge of him is that he was the editor and, er, "book reviewer" for the ACS' own journal.  If he has done more than that it needs to be in the article.  --BlackJack | talk page 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can add something to his article. Hopefully I can find a citation for the Cricketer Quarterly editorship. (This was a statistical supplement to The Cricketer which could be bought independently of the magaizine.) JH (talk page) 18:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Amazon has several books by Brooke. His columns were made into a book in the late 1980s but it is not listed there. Vic Isaacs was the co-author (with Bill Frindall) of Wisden Book of One day cricket - the counterpart of the much more famous book on Test cricket. The first edition came out in 1985, don't know whether there were more editions. Amazon has a small Hants records book.
 * I've now expanded Robert Brooke with as much material as a brief search on the web would turn up. The new Bibliography section includes all of his books that Amazon UK are aware of. I found an online article from an issue of The Times from somewhen in 2003, saying that he was statistician and historian for The Cricketer. He may well still be so, but I don't have any evidence for that. JH (talk page) 19:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete all except Brooke and Bailey. &mdash;Moondyne 01:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. Having read the expanded article about Robert Brooke and also made a couple of verbal enquiries about him, it appears I have underestimated him and I would like to withdraw his article from this nomination.  --BlackJack | talk page 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Question for an admin: if I as nominator wish to withdraw a nomination, can I remove the AfD tag from the article or am I committed to this process? --BlackJack | talk page 17:58, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If there were 100% opposes to the nomination, then it would be OK to request the nomination be withdrawn, and that would generally need to be done by a closing admin, not yourself. However, if there's mixed votes, as we have have here, you're pretty much committed to see it through to its conclusion.  The tags really should stay on the Brooke and Bailey pages for the time being.  &mdash;Moondyne 02:14, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Moondyne. Much appreciated.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For information. The person who blanked this page on Monday is masquerading under at least four usernames: User talk:BlueJohnMine, User talk:PatsyHendren, User talk:Soames and User talk:JackHearne as well as under the IP address quoted above.  He is indeed the subject of one of the articles nominated and he has sent me a personal e-mail to tell me in no uncertain terms that I have no right to amend "his article" without his permission and that I am acting "beyond my remit" in trying to delete the articles about "prominent members" of the ACS.  He has been served a number of warnings on Wikipedia besides one about blanking this page.  May I suggest that one of the admins investigates his activities and takes the appropriate action.  Thank you.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:14, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * This point is now under discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket, and it might be better to concentrate the discussion there. Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It would definitely appear that some of these articles should be deleted. I note that if any are kept (including the ones withdrawn from the nomination), the use of is a bit confusing, as the primary usage of that category is for statistical researchers, quite a different thing to compilers of sports statistics. JPD (talk) 10:59, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A very good point. I've removed all cricket people from  as they are inappropriate to that category.  --BlackJack | talk page 21:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all but Bailey, Brooke and Vic Isaacs, who's also doubled as a reporter for Cricinfo amongst other roles. --Dweller 10:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Precedent. Huw Nathan is the membership secretary of the ACS and a similarly nepotic article about him was summarily deleted very speedily in this discussion.  --BlackJack | talk page 21:15, 7 July 2007 (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.