Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Dewé - Wikipedia

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 redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Dewé (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

No reliable, independent indepth sources to establish that this player meets WP:GNG. Sources are either statistics databases, educational institutions about their alumni, or very short mentions in the London Gazette. Actual independent sources giving some real attention to this cricket player seem to be missing, which means that while he meets the low standards of WP:NCRIC (played two first class games for the University cricket team), he fails the standard which these cricket rules try to codify, i.e. actually meeting the WP:GNG. Also no evidence of notability as an educator or as an officer. Fram (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. A bad faith nomination from a user with a personal agenda against several members of the cricket project. StickyWicket (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:NPA please. Fram (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meets CRIN and wider GNG established by his career in education. All sources are independent and reliable. StickyWicket (talk) 11:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering that his "career in education" is only established through sources from the school and the University he attended. To be precise, the Marlborough source has this to say about his educational career: "Asst. Master Stancliffe Hall, Matlock". The "Alumni" source gives similar terse entries for his functions as assistant master and later joint head ùaster in some schools. How is this supposed to show meeting the GNG? Fram (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Let's go through the sources:

• Marlborough College register from 1843 to 1904 inclusive. With alphabetical index - There is no Charles Dewe on p.185 of this. A keyword search for "Dewe" brings up no hits that that are obviously connected to Charles Dewe. I'm sure he's in here somewhere, but not at the location he was supposed to be at. Even if he were, this is a register of every student who entered this school, so does it really indicate notability? Since it was published by Marlborough college, is it independent? EDIT: seems the actual listing is on page 510, but it's not WP:SIGCOV and does not mention a cricketing career.
• Alumni cantabrigienses; a biographical list of all known students, graduates and holders of office at the University of Cambridge, from the earliest times to 1900 - There is a listing for Charles Douglas Eyre Dewe here, but I do not see any mention of a cricket career here. Instead he seems to have been a worthy (but not notable) educator and military officer. Again, as the title say, this is a book listing everyone who studied, graduated, or was taught at Cambridge up until 1900, so does it really indicate notability? Since it was published by Cambridge, is it independent?
• cricketarchive - statistical database. Clicking on it and pressing escape before it redirects allows me to read the entry. This appears to be a "database source[] with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion" and so excluded per WP:NSPORT.
• The London Gazette - these are merely commissioning/promotion notices and do not constitute WP:SIGCOV.

I'm open to this guy having a WP:BASIC pass somewhere, but not with the sources presently provided in the article. FOARP (talk) 12:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I agree with FOARP. This article and its non-cricket sources fail my "grandfather" test. Could I write such an article with similar sources about my grandfather? The answer is yes. He was university educated and a school teacher and served on the Western front and was an officer. Is he notable enough for us? No, nowhere near. Nigej (talk) 18:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Between the combination of his cricketing career and education/military life I think there is just enough for a keep here, although not by much. I'd like to see a bit more, but as always with players from this era finding online sources can be difficult. At worse it should be redirected to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players as a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:12, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players - Throwing together a bunch of things that don’t actually indicate notability doesn’t get you to notability. FOARP (talk) 09:12, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players - Still nothing to indicate anything approaching notability. Nigej (talk) 14:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players no significant coverage --Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 15:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players per above. Regardless of the dishwater weak provisions of NCRIC (which the cricket project's been stonewalling against improvements for years), there's just no significant coverage of the subject; what exists are casual mentions and namedrops in non-independent sources, and no NSPORTS criterion supersedes the GNG. That finding sources from a century back is hard may be true, but the answer there is not that the provisions of WP:V and the GNG are thereby suspended. 0+0+0+0+0=0. Ravenswing 07:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The cricket project just so happened to agree to improvements, but if disruptive users decide to move the goalposts that's hardly our problem. StickyWicket (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Riiiiiight. They agreed, after several years of intermittent discussion, to drop Regional Finals from the criteria. That we're seeing so many cricket articles with zero SIGCOV suggests that was inadequate. Ravenswing 02:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the number of competitions and leagues that were removed from being notable in the guidelines, this is quite a erroneous comment. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:52, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Given examining the guideline a year ago and the one today, it's not anything of the sort. Ravenswing 19:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thousands of players who would have been notable under the previous guideline, are now no longer notable. I'd say that's an improvement. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Cambridge University Cricket Club players as suggested by multiple editors above. RobinCarmody (talk) 02:37, 30 December 2021 (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.