- 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 no consensus. Both sides have been well-argued and no point substantially prevails. Stifle ( talk) 16:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
Richard Wodehouse
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Richard Wodehouse ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Does not meet GNG. I looked, but was unable to find any significant RS coverage. The coverage is either database entries or about other people. [1] Could redirect to his brother or Wodehouse family. b uidh e 09:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. b uidh e 09:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. First-class cricketer, who passes WP:CRIN and by extension WP:GNG, and who also played international matches for Hong Kong and the Straits Settlements. There is nothing that says database entries cannot be used to establish notability, so this nomination is a non-starter I'm afraid. StickyWicket ( talk) 12:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- reluctant Keep - I don't see any significant coverage; most articles are about his brother. The cited pages are statistics pages and ancestry pages which do not provide significant coverage. Since I can't find a reliable, independent secondary source with significant coverage, I would normally say delete. However, the Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Cricket page says a cricket player is automatically notable if they play in a match "at the highest international level", and that seems to be satisfied here, so I suppose I have to say keep. Ikjbagl ( talk) 22:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
- Delete Subject specific guidelines only provide the presumption of notability, we need good sources to show it. Here we just have coverage in light of relatives, so we should delete. All the more so since the cricket subject notability guideline has proved to be over broad in so many cases. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 15:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
- Keep. Clearly passes notability standards for cricketers. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:13, 29 April 2020 (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.