Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. Green (Surrey 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. Daniel (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

W. Green (Surrey cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in my searches. Störm  (talk)  20:10, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - I never knew we still had articles for initial-only players from English counties. I see he is listed on List of Surrey cricketers, if so I'm assuming he is good for a merge. Bobo. 20:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails all notability guidelines.  RobinCarmody (talk) 21:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. AnotherEditor144talk contribs 09:15, 14 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Not sure. WP:NCricket does state: "Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". Based on that he is notable, even in this is a contentious notability guideline. I found an article on the Australian Cricket Archive from 1894 which states Surrey used a large number of players during this period. Also added Wisden archive record from ESPNCric. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete; comprehensively fails GNG. Also must be considered a failure of NCRIC due to questionable F-C status of the one match we know about (pre-1895, when F-C status became officially recognised), and knowing that F-C is not an equivalence to "highest international or domestic level" anyway. No value in leaving a redirect. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * First Class Cricket is a term that has unknown origins, but was agreed by clubs in 1895 to be adopted for county cricket. The Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians state that all matches prior to 1895 of a high standard as important matches, which they count county matches in. And the ICC state "that first class cricket, which for this purpose includes all "important matches" played before 1895" is one of the highest forms of cricket.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 14:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Almost. However "high standard" was far from the only consideration for designation as FC or important; and like FC, "important" also does not (always) equate to "highest level". wjematherplease leave a message... 15:38, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * It's unreasonable to doubt the status of the Derbyshire v Surrey match that Green appeared in: the Surrey team contained the Reads, Shuter, and Bobby Abel, though there were contemporary complaints about the quality of other players, especially, in this match, the bowlers, and the team had already lost heavily at Nottingham before losing this game. Derbyshire was regarded as a "leading county" at this stage, though this was the first time it had played Surrey. So Green passes WP:NCRIC, whatever that is worth these days. More worrying, perhaps, is that no one seems to know who he was or even what his first name was. That's true too of another player in the same match, W. Wood, who also played for Surrey at Nottingham in the same month and, with two matches, also passes WP:NCRIC without us knowing who he really was. Johnlp (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Derbyshire's history and record around this time speaks for itself. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * "Leading" is used by Wisden at this stage and later for the counties whose teams were considered top-level in the domestic game at the time. The Association of Cricket Statisticians published lists of what it retrospectively termed "first-class" matches going back to 1801 about 20 years ago, and the status of most matches (top-class or not-top-class, or whatever word you want to use) at least from 1864 onwards isn't in much dispute: the game that Green played in isn't anywhere doubted. (But maybe you know better than Wisden and the ACS.) My point is that he therefore passes WP:NCRIC (as does W. Wood), and you can take your choice whether this means he then gets a presumptive pass pro tem for WP:GNG or not. But there's surely a more basic problem with WP:V and WP:N if we don't know who he was. Johnlp (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of all that, and of contemporary commentary; I think my point is being missed (I'll try and find a better/clearer way of expressing it next time). Anyway, even if you offer that presumption, it is not a bypass of GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:00, 18 February 2021 (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.