Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Brandon (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 merge to List of English cricketers to 1771. Consensus seems to be that this is worth merging and redirecting. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 12:23, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Thomas Brandon (cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NCRIC - first-class cricket was not established at the time he played. So little is known about him that it will be impossible to write a biography with any detail. The Ashley-Cooper source is available online here and says simply that he was a batsman from Dartford - literally we have five words on him. We simply don't have enough to write anything very much about a club cricketer. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. We have, of course, more than five words in other sources, and I see reference to another match not mentioned in the article. The Underwood source has more detail, including that he was a constable. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Subject appears to fail GNG, so the keep votes are utterly unconvincing. Relisting for more thorough discussion not focused on whether subject meets some arbitrary criteria but whether there are enough reliable sources to write an article which satisfies basic criteria.
 * Vote changed – see below. Weak keep per StAnselm and also because this passes NCRIC as it is written. NCRIC doesn't mention first-class cricket – the qualifier is having played at the highest international or domestic level. The three games he played in are listed in the ACS guide which signifies that they were the highest domestic level at the time . I was a little doubtful about GNG on first reading but there are three sources in the article and another one StAnselm has found so it may have the necessary coverage. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:47, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per No Great Shaker and StAnselm.4meter4 (talk) 00:44, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Closing sysop please note. This relisting comment is out of order. Relisting is done impartially to stimulate discussion, not to try and influence editors one way or the other. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:40, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but there is long-standing community de facto agreement that passing an SNG but failing GNG is not enough. Therefore, this warrants further discussion, not only because of that but because the keeps have not presented a single source to show GNG, despite their assertions that this subject is notable. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 11:31, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * No, the point of being the person to relist is to neutrally encourage more discussion. Rather than attempting to undermine people, which you're relist there clearly does. Fine to relist it, but the relisting comment is inappropriate. You could have just relisted it, and left your opinion as a regular vote/comment. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . Three things I'd like to say to . First, you relisted despite two editors contributing to the discussion in the previous two days so, discussion active, why relist? If you want to vote delete then by all means do so in the normal way – without going out of process. Second, you claim that the keeps have not presented a single source. There are already three in the article and has taken the trouble to find another one. The source I've given doesn't mention the player, of course, but it does confirm the matches he is associated with were top-class at the time. Third, for the benefit of everyone who reads this case, please define "arbitrary criteria" and provide examples. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:25, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is one of the worst relistings I've ever seen. StAnselm (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * As the nom, I'd like to add two things:
 * If there are other sources that show a GNG level of sourcing then could details be added to the article. As it's written, the article says "little is known of him personally". I don't have access to the Underdown book, so perhaps someone who does could add the detail that it has;
 * WP:NCRIC was rewritten. The hyperlink from the words "highest international or domestic level" makes it perfectly clear that Brandon's cricket can not come close to meeting NCRIC - there is a definition of what we consider to the top-class. In the past it was deliberately written in order to allow a known sock master to promote their own agenda wrt 18th century cricketers, hence the proliferation of articles like this. As a result we're dependent on the GNG. Unless Underdown has a lot more (in which case the start of the sentence which references him needs to be changed, as clearly we will know a tonne more about him personally) or unless Waghorn has something other than a scorecard, I'm really not sure this comes close to GNG requirements.
 * But I could be wrong. That's one reason why, after checking everything I could, I nominated the article for deletion. Perhaps requesting that people at NSPORTS take a look would be a useful next step? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2021 (UTC)


 * –, I must apologise. I missed the hyperlink. So, in essence, any English cricketer before 1890 must meet GNG? Anyway, I agree that this player doesn't meet NCRIC after all and I've amended my suggestion above. It seems we have four sources but obviously the Astley-Cooper one you highlighted has minimal information and much more will be needed. I think a request to NSPORTS is a good idea. Thanks for the clarification. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete regardless of my feelings about the relisting, they haven't played in a notable official cricket match, which is what WP:NCRIC suggests would make them notable. As mentioned above, this was rewritten a few months ago to be more explicit about who is likely to be notable or not. And I don't think that with the sources listed, they pass WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I was involved heavily in the updating of the cricket guidelines, more specifically to judge notability on more recent 20th and 21st century players, but also on the more historic players, for whom the guidelines previously were skewed for an editor(s) who had specific interest in creating articles on players from this era. In this case we actually have more information on the man that we have on other previously players that have been discussed (such as his occupation, and that he played in Dartford and Kent in the 1750s), however coverage is still slightly limited. I'd say id lean to Merge and redirect to List of English cricketers to 1771 where he is listed, perhaps with the extra information we have found added to his section in the list. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of English cricketers to 1771 changing my vote, since this is a valid WP:ATD. Joseph2302</b> (talk) 09:37, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to List of English cricketers to 1771 per Rugbyfan22 and Joseph2302 (also a changed vote). That is the best way to deal with a case like this because it seems unlikely that anyone will be able to check the given sources for GNG strength. If more information and additional sources should be found in future, the redirect can be reversed. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:02, 20 September 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.