Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surridge Sport


 * 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 redirect to Stuart Surridge. If anyone wishes to merge the content from behind the redirect into either the Stuart Surridge article, or the cricket article, they are welcome to do so. Daniel (talk) 13:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Surridge Sport

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable company, no sources found to meet WP:COMPANY or WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJayWhat did I do? 02:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. JayJayWhat did I do?  02:57, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Similarily, I tried searching around, and after filtering out social media, and sites obviously controlled by the subject, I found only one source - a traffic monitoring site. Looking into the news, it does appear that Surrige Sport is mentioned multiple times: , , , , , but only in an ephemeral, or trivial fashion - eg only as mentions of the sponsors of an event, or the manufacturers of a garb. Unsurprisingly, looking into elsevier's library or into JSTOR showed nothing either. Consequently, this appears to be non-notable under wp:GNG (and wp:basic.) BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 03:05, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per BrxBrx, non-notable. Elliot321 (talk &#124; contribs) 03:54, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep I have added more to the page. This was a major supplier of sports equipment up and to the early 90s when it got swallowed up. There is probably a lot more pre net, especially in snooker.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * None of the sources you added show in-depth coverage of the company to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. JayJay<sup style="color:black">What did I do? 22:35, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps merge into history of cricket as a short 1 paragraph, or remake as an article on Stuart Surridge (who actually does appear to have sustained significant coverage)? BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with BrxBrx ) 05:11, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * If not keep then Merge into the Stuart Surridge page. As I said pre net so trying to find info on SS is impossible, found a review on a Jumbo, and another article about cricket bat's but unfortunately not much else. That the greatest cricket players of all time used an SS bat means we need to keep this info. It even influenced Powder finger on their album Double Allergic. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  13:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia does not, currently, have any rules regarding the historical importance of a subject versus its notability guideline. I wish it had because a lot of articles that would be considered to have historical importance may have been saved. That being said, as it currently is, this subject does not meet the basic notability requirements. We can say that there must be something out there because of its prominence within the sport, however, whether we believe it is there or not does not supersede the guideline policy. Does not receive SIGCOV in independent and reliable sources as per WP:N. If a suitable location for redirect or merge can be presented then I wouldn't be opposed to that route. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 16:34, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The other issue with the rules is that if you are a person, WP:Basic can be argued but it can't be used for anything else! Same as academics - if their is sigcov and they held the right position they can be on here, even if their position in history is questionable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But that's the rules we have until they are changed. We are instructed to rule based on the notability guideline. It either passes or it does not. This does not. -- A Rose Wolf ( Talk ) 14:34, 12 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.