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 keep. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Young (MCC cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nn partial name from a single source, 185 year old amateur sportsman of whom nothing else is known. C'mon. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. No, you "c'mon". This person played in a first-class cricket match and therefore meets WP:CRIN as a notable sportsman. As for your comment that he is "185 years old" what has that got to do with anything? We have at least one notable cricketer who was born in the 17th century. Cricket has been a professional team sport since the 1660s and the word "amateur" in cricket does not have its everyday meaning. The greatest player of all time, arguably, was officially an amateur. If you are going to make nominations, please check the project definition first and cut out the "clever" remarks which impress no one. What a waste of time. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment. Also, you say "single source". There are two as he is mentioned in the Haygarth book (see bibliography) but that has not been cited inline. I'll look up the page number when time allows and include it. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - losing battle on this one I'm afraid Kintetsubuffalo. Young played at the highest domestic level of cricket in England, passing WP:CRIN, WP:ATH and by extension WP:GNG. Although thus far only his surname is known, that's not to say in the future more information won't be discovered. I've recently gone through the Marylebone Cricket Club category and found a few "A. Jones" who since their article was created more information, such as their full name and dates of birth have been discovered. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's a useful one. Not seen it before. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for the non-cricket familiar an article like this is the classic example of one FC match making it look like the subject did pretty much nothing with their cricket. Instead, Young likely had a much more extensive life as an amateur cricketer, of which his FC appearance was the pinnacle and satisfies the notability criteria. Expansion and more detail is needed! S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I can't remember the article in question, but wasn't there a similar surname-only micro-stub that was merged to a list last year? The guidelines for notability of cricketers (and footballers for that matter) are extremely undemanding compared to other sports (e.g. boxing), but personally I would err on the side of keeping. --Michig (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That can't have been a cricket biography unless it was a non-FC player who deserved mention in a list but not his own article. WP:CRIC members themselves have often PRODed or AFDed biogs about minor players. This is why the conditions in WP:CRIN are so precise. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:51, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it revolves around the perception that "oh, they only played one or two games, the cannot be that notable" when in reality it ought to be "actually, they've done so much just to reach the level where they would play one FC match". S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he probably had good blood, or family money, and someone was trying to butter him up! Harrias ^talk 10:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• More info. Haygarth confirms Young was a gentleman member of MCC on p. 152 of S&BII. I've added that to the article. There were still a fair number of MCC members in the 1830s whose full names are unknown but, as SGGH pointed out above, we have often found out more about them not only in cricket but because they tended to be distinguished in another field. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:29, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a good point. As an example, three years ago we had Codrington (MCC cricketer) and now it's Christopher Bethell-Codrington. Also W. Harbord (MCC cricketer) is now William Harbord, 2nd Baron Suffield. There would dozens more similar examples, these were just of the top of my head. Jenks24 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets WP:NSPORTS and in addition meets one of our fundamental principles – "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers." An inclusion in Haygarth's Scores & Biographies, which is effectively a specialist encyclopedia should merit and inclusion in Wikipedia. Jenks24 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That is an excellent point. I will always argue that Haygarth is a more notable source for C18 and C19 than the online databases. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.