Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Blackmore

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. JForget 00:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

George Blackmore

George Blackmore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

There are multiple "George Blackmores" who played cricket, but the only reference I can find to this specific individual is the cited reference at Cricket Archive. The coverage there is very superficial, so to me he does not satisfy the basic criteria of WP:PEOPLE: "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage... may not be sufficient." Rnickel (talk) 17:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:CRIN, as the player played first class cricket. I accept the argument put forward by the nominator, however with Cricket Archive (and CricInfo) entries, and a first class cricket career, he passes cricket player notability guidelines which satisfies me. SGGH ^ping! 18:01, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CRIN/WP:ATH. Has played at the highest level and therefore passes the notability criteria. The content is all verifiable through the provided source. —SpacemanSpiff 18:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep: Oh dear, how often are we going to have to do this? Keep as he has played first-class cricket, the highest level in domestic cricket. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:57, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep As a first-class cricketer. Cricinfo is a reliable source. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. Johnlp (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep If it helps, his obituary appears in the 1985 edition of Wisden Cricketers' Almanack, though admittedly it only runs to one long sentence. JH (talk page) 21:33, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I refuse to vote so here's a comment. In strict WP:CRIN terms (mostly written by me), this article has a notable subject because he did play a few first-class matches. But, really, shouldn't the cricket project be taking a step back and reconsidering which cricketers are actually notable? At the end of the day, what exactly is "notable" about someone who played in an odd match somewhere? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 22:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • For what it is worth, I entirely agree with this. WP:CRIN is of course not a guideline. WP:CRIN shouldn't be cited as a reason to keep in an AfD. My personal view is that first-class should generally count as "fully professional" for WP:ATH but factually I know that is incorrect as much first class cricket is semi-pro or amateur. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that's worth a great deal, Mkativerata. However, you immediately encounter difficulties when you refer to amateur first-class players because the amateurs had a peculiar status in cricket that you won't see elsewhere. Some of cricket's greatest players, one of whom was indeed its greatest-ever player, were officially amateur. The problem is a huge number of players, both amateur and professional, who appeared in only a handful of matches and could be consolidated in a single article or list, defined by period, instead of individual articles. I should have put forward this view before but I "went gone along with the flow" and now I wonder if it is time to row against the flow. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:15, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed. I'd be worried about applying the "fully professional" standard to cricket as full professionalisation of first class cricket has been so recent. We'd lose a lot of history. I think WP:ATH ought to be applied with common sense and liberalised in highly covered sports where athletes at a high level (first class) aren't strictly professional. --Mkativerata (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I think WP:ATH adequately covers the situation in cricket from the late 17th century when "amateurs" and professionals played together because they did play at the highest level and the matches were essentially professional in that the majority of players were professional. The amateurs ostensibly played for "expenses" but the world knows that WG made more money out of cricket than any "professional". ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:28, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. As the nominator, I don't think I'm allowed to vote, but something really fundamental is being overlooked here, and I want to call attention back to it. To wit: I don't think the subject-specific guidelines such as WP:ATH and WP:CRIN are intended to supplant basic notability as in WP:BASIC; rather, they are there to raise the bar, not lower it. They are there to rule out the athlete who, despite significant secondary coverage, only played in the minors and is therefore not notable. They are not, to my mind, intended to elevate the otherwise-anonymous scrub who played one game in the majors. I hope the cricket project will take to heart the advice of Jack, above, and seriously reconsider, within the larger community of Wikipedia, who is generally worthy of a free-standing article. If movie buffs used the same standard you all have adopted, we'd have every bit-part walk-on with their own article, and the next thing you know, we're IMDB all over again. If these guys are already recorded for history in Cricket Archive and the like, what is the point of repeating them here? -- Rnickel (talk) 23:44, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I think that is very well put, Rnickel. I was the main (probably only) author of WP:CRIN and I am uncomfortable with it. I think the author of WP:ATH should be be feeling similar discomfort. I am coming around to the idea of lists that mention those people who were the "extras" and, to be sure, I've already done it myself in terms of 18th century cricketers per List of early English cricketers to 1786 which contains details of several players that I don't think can warrant a standalone article.
  • The trouble with these votes is that a particular project becomes aware of the nomination and a herd mentality ensues. They all apply the guideline such as [[WP:CRIN}} without stopping to think if the guideline is right. I question it and I wrote the guideline! ----Jack | ^{talk page} 23:58, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• Keep first-class cricketer YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I see that in one of his appearances, Blackmore played in the same Kent team as Ames, Evans, Fagg and Wright, among others. They were undeniably first-class. Was Blackmore of the same standard or was he making up the numbers? This whole thing needs thinking about. I sense a herd mentality here. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 00:31, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm not going to !vote here either, because I'm probably guilty of creating a few stubs of this type and I'd like to see where this AFD ends up, but I will make this point: when it comes to players such as Blackmore with very few appearances who have died, I always check to see if Wisden bothered with an obituary; if they didn't then I don't create the article. All I will say on this case is, Wisden did bother... to type one measly sentence. Undecided. — AMBerry (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Reply. I think there must be a principle around sources in addition to the name in the scorecard. As you say, if Wisden or another good source ascribes some notability to a player, then he must be notable. But I have grave doubts about people whose names appear in just one or two scorecards only. Note – see comment about James Rice at WT:CRIC. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:58, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

• Blackmore was a well known figure in London Club Cricket. His name appears in the summaries given each fortnight. He spent many years abroad in the Indian Civil Service. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.16.87 (talk) 11:48, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
• comment @Rnickel: As the nominator your nom is normally assumed to be a "Delete" !vote except in teh case of purely procedural nominations (as when an editor completes a nom for an IP user, or when someone relists after closing a DRV). As to the supplementary notability guidelines, you are, in general, incorrect. They are intended, in general, to lower the bar, not raise it. To put it another way, if a subject passes the general notability guideline, and therefore WP:N, there is normally no need to even consider whether the subject passes WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:ATH, or any other specific notability guideline, the subject is notable. The supplementary guidelines are either shorthand or bypass. They indicate cases in which either it is highly likely that significant coverage exists so there is no need to look for it, or in which there is consensus that a subject is notable whether the coverage is there or not. For example, mayors of large cities are presumed notable, but are also almost certain to have significant coverage. Bands with multiple released major label albums are presumed notable. Athletes at the Olympic level, or its equivalent in non-Olympic sports, are presumed notable, but usually have significant coverage. Of course, the requirements of WP:V remain, there must be enough sources to verify the content. As to the notability of players who have played in first class cricket but only for a few games, I have no opinion. However, one should remember that for players of the 1940s there may be significant coverage that is not online. DES ^(talk) 01:28, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
  • DES, thanks for the comment. If that's the case— that category-specific criteria are intended to lower the bar, not raise it— then I think it would avoid a lot of unnecessary contention to have that explicitly stated in WP:NOTE somewhere. (For example, I've seen this same issue come up in the question of the notability of individual high schools.) Obviously, revising Wikipedia policy is somewhat above my pay grade... Does anyone have any idea how to go about that? — Rnickel (talk) 16:58, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I think it is actually already stated, but could perhaps be made clearer. For example WP:BIO (which includes WP:ATH as a section, says (Basic Criterion) "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject." and (Additional criteria) "A person is generally notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability." (Emphasis added) The various field-specific criteria follow this and are all "additional criteria". WP:N says: "A topic is presumed to be notable enough to merit an article if it meets the general notability guidelines below. A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject specific guidelines listed on the right." (Emphasis added) The "guidelines on the right" are the 10 Subject specific guidelines including WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. "Also" here pretty clearly indicates (IMO) that notability under one of the specific guidelines is in addition to notability under the WP:GNG. To put it in another way, a subject is notable if it either meets the GNG, or meets any of the subject-specific guidelines. For most of those guidelines, a subject is considered notable if it means any of the subject-specific criteria. For example WP:PROF says: "This guideline is independent from the other subject specific notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, etc.: it is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under one of the other subject specific notability guidelines. Conversely, if an academic is notable under this guideline, his or her possible failure to meet other subject specific notability guidelines is irrelevant." WP:Music says that "A musician or ensemble ... may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria..." and the first criterion is essentially a restatement of the WP:GNG. DES ^(talk) 20:48, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
• Comment these last two comments are interesting, I had wondered what prompted the fact that his initial first-class games were in India - given the timing I had thought maybe he had been serving in the armed forces, but could find no evidence for that Indian Civil Service makes sense, and it would be useful to know just how senior he was - he could have notability on those grounds too. David Underdown (talk) 09:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
• Delete. Lets start applying some common sense to this. Someone who has played one game at what is deemed first class cricket (though that itself is debatable in 1944), was never a professional player. If they meet the general notability guidelines independently then fair enough, but if all we have is some cricket database site then that certainly is not significant coverage. A couple of months ago I nominated Ronald Eckersley for deletion, on the basis that he had only played one game for Yorkshire against the RAF, and that was kept on the basis that he had played first class cricket, and so is automatically notable. In that AfD I pointed out that one of the RAF players had only played in that one game as well, and hadn't batted or bowled, but technically met WP:CRIC. Lo and behold someone decided it was a good idea to create the article, so now we have Neville Shelmerdine!

There are a few concerns about these sort of articles. One is that we are generally basing them on database sources. Another is that we are defining people who were essentially there to make up the numbers as first class cricketers on the basis of one game. What they did in the rest of their life is probably much more significant, but we don't know anything about it. I'm sure some of these people would be a bit surprised if they googled their name and found they were being defined by wikipedia as a first class cricketer. I encourage the cricket wikiproject to examine this issue. Try and come up with some sort of guidance that reflects real world notability, not just meeting the letter of the law of some wikipedia guidance. Quantpole (talk) 08:52, 31 March 2010 (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.