This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This redirect is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of
cricket. Please participate by visiting the
project and
talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based
WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in
one big list and in
CSV format)
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Support- obviously. The fact is that this article was not even a biography, just a scorecard bloated into prose. And the AfD clearly came to a working consensus that this is not suitable for a stand-alone article. A merge seems the only reasonable way forward from here.
ReykYO!16:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. I agree with all the above. The list entry is fine though it might look better if it was tabulated. To my mind, there is no point in having an article that is simply a report of one player's performance in a single match when all that is known of the player is his surname. Oh, and I'm told he was apparently not a gentleman or he would have been Chitty, Esq. in the scorecard. Ha!
Scribbles by The Scribbler (
talk)
16:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Since outright deletion is not a likely outcome, then at least merge it into something useful. This is hypothetically a biographical article. Name? unknown. D.O.B and D.O.D? unknown. Any other personal details? unknown. Ok... not a good start. How about career details? Batting? unknown. Bowling? unknown, but somehow it's known to be underarm. Role? unknown. Years active? 1800... for one known match. Performance for that match? "not 0", and a catch. *Plays gif of Captain Picard face palm* A short rant: In no other field can I imagine such a lacklustre standard of notability upheld as it is in sports, on Wikipedia. In no other sport can I find such a lacklustre standard of notability upheld as it is in cricket, on Wikipedia. This is the bottom step, of the lowest ladder.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support As the one who suggested this in the AfD page, there are reasonable doubts this article will ever amount to more than a stub, despite how much padding is added. If we are wrong, & further research uncovers more information about this person, we can always revert the redirect to a proper article. As an addendum,
List of English cricketers (1787–1825) has a number of links to other stubs that should be merged to this article.
I just had a look at the target for this merge. Someone has done the merge, but in an inartful manner. We don't need the contents of this article cut-n-pasted into this list. --
llywrch (
talk)
17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
That was me. Yes, I'd be happy to trim the bloat by three-quarters but if I did that I'd likely be burned at the stake. Better, I think, to do a maximal merge and then, when the structure of the list becomes clearer, clean up.
ReykYO!17:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Reyk:, I added my suggestion for what I was picturing on the Talk page. While that might be a bit too sparse in details, it provides an idea of what I was proposing. --
llywrch (
talk)
19:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support merge. Per the reasons above; fundamentally, also per my remark at the AfD that we—none of us—actually know whom it is that we are bestowing notability on. An interesting circ., de soleil :)
——SerialNumber5412917:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per SNOW. Now this is the way to do it, not that earlier article and closer talk page whatever it was, making me go to the 3RR limit before finally doing what should have been done right after the first revert, and bringing this merge request to this section of this talk page. When merged, it would be good will to Chitty, ole chap, to do a proper merge and keep most if not all of what was summarized.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Snow support It is an utter farce that some people think that someone is notable enough for an article despite their name not even being known! It completely baffles me why playing in a single game of a sport - even if their name did happen to be recorded! - makes one notable on Wikipedia for all time. These sorts of individuals whose supposed fame is only known in a meaningless game notes or database do not pass the GNG and should not have any so-called presumed notability.
Reywas92Talk06:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to set up the redirect for this and, if necessary, edit the text down along the lines suggested on the destination talk page tomorrow unless anyone thinks it's a good idea to keep it open for longer. That'll be the 7 days and, given the support, I think it's probably a reasonable solution.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This redirect is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of
cricket. Please participate by visiting the
project and
talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based
WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in
one big list and in
CSV format)
This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject England, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
England on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnglandWikipedia:WikiProject EnglandTemplate:WikiProject EnglandEngland-related articles
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Support- obviously. The fact is that this article was not even a biography, just a scorecard bloated into prose. And the AfD clearly came to a working consensus that this is not suitable for a stand-alone article. A merge seems the only reasonable way forward from here.
ReykYO!16:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. I agree with all the above. The list entry is fine though it might look better if it was tabulated. To my mind, there is no point in having an article that is simply a report of one player's performance in a single match when all that is known of the player is his surname. Oh, and I'm told he was apparently not a gentleman or he would have been Chitty, Esq. in the scorecard. Ha!
Scribbles by The Scribbler (
talk)
16:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Since outright deletion is not a likely outcome, then at least merge it into something useful. This is hypothetically a biographical article. Name? unknown. D.O.B and D.O.D? unknown. Any other personal details? unknown. Ok... not a good start. How about career details? Batting? unknown. Bowling? unknown, but somehow it's known to be underarm. Role? unknown. Years active? 1800... for one known match. Performance for that match? "not 0", and a catch. *Plays gif of Captain Picard face palm* A short rant: In no other field can I imagine such a lacklustre standard of notability upheld as it is in sports, on Wikipedia. In no other sport can I find such a lacklustre standard of notability upheld as it is in cricket, on Wikipedia. This is the bottom step, of the lowest ladder.
Mr rnddude (
talk)
17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support As the one who suggested this in the AfD page, there are reasonable doubts this article will ever amount to more than a stub, despite how much padding is added. If we are wrong, & further research uncovers more information about this person, we can always revert the redirect to a proper article. As an addendum,
List of English cricketers (1787–1825) has a number of links to other stubs that should be merged to this article.
I just had a look at the target for this merge. Someone has done the merge, but in an inartful manner. We don't need the contents of this article cut-n-pasted into this list. --
llywrch (
talk)
17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
That was me. Yes, I'd be happy to trim the bloat by three-quarters but if I did that I'd likely be burned at the stake. Better, I think, to do a maximal merge and then, when the structure of the list becomes clearer, clean up.
ReykYO!17:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Reyk:, I added my suggestion for what I was picturing on the Talk page. While that might be a bit too sparse in details, it provides an idea of what I was proposing. --
llywrch (
talk)
19:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support merge. Per the reasons above; fundamentally, also per my remark at the AfD that we—none of us—actually know whom it is that we are bestowing notability on. An interesting circ., de soleil :)
——SerialNumber5412917:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per SNOW. Now this is the way to do it, not that earlier article and closer talk page whatever it was, making me go to the 3RR limit before finally doing what should have been done right after the first revert, and bringing this merge request to this section of this talk page. When merged, it would be good will to Chitty, ole chap, to do a proper merge and keep most if not all of what was summarized.
Randy Kryn (
talk)
00:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Snow support It is an utter farce that some people think that someone is notable enough for an article despite their name not even being known! It completely baffles me why playing in a single game of a sport - even if their name did happen to be recorded! - makes one notable on Wikipedia for all time. These sorts of individuals whose supposed fame is only known in a meaningless game notes or database do not pass the GNG and should not have any so-called presumed notability.
Reywas92Talk06:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm inclined to set up the redirect for this and, if necessary, edit the text down along the lines suggested on the destination talk page tomorrow unless anyone thinks it's a good idea to keep it open for longer. That'll be the 7 days and, given the support, I think it's probably a reasonable solution.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.