Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Leycester (MCC 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

T. Leycester (MCC cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. Details aren't provided on how many matches the subject played, but it was only during one season. The subject is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Harrias talk 10:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Harrias  talk 10:08, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:14, 24 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete - doesn't actually meet NCRIC either - the single match he is known to have played in is one that isn't considerd first-class by anyone other than the article's author (it was a match against the Montpelier Club - his CricketArchive profile is here). So, we have a single non-notable match of cricket, a surname and an initial. We'll never be able to build a biography on that and the single match doesn't make him notable in any way. Of course, he may be notable for something else, if we can ever figure out who he actually was. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Didn't play at first-class level and the source seems to be self-published . StickyWicket (talk) 20:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same as the two previous entries in this list. Nowhere near enough for GNG even if it does meet the SNG. You can't build an article on a statistical record. I do have a question for StickyWicket, though, about why you think one or both of the sources are self-published? They are from the 19th century and, at face value, seem to be authentic. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment. I take that back! Reading the nomination I thought the source being quoted was self-published by the now banned user who created the article, they often used their own website for references and claimed some non first-class cricketers were first-class. StickyWicket (talk) 09:50, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
 * thanks for getting back to me. I remove self-published sources too, so I quite understand. Must admit I do get confused about first-class because its scope looks to be much wider than in football and there seem to be different views about when and how it began. I suppose this guy playing in the 1800s was too early. Anyway, all the best. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:31, 30 December 2019 (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.