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. Kurykh (talk) 02:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mat Chapman

[edit]

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

This article has one source, virtually nothing else exists of the man. I scrolled through search engines trying to find him, he only comes up here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naterybner (talk • contribs) 03:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Completed nomination on behalf of above user--above text was copied from the edit summary. As for my own view, the provided source (considered the most reliable one for cricket statistics) shows that he did indeed play first-class cricket and therefore meets the notability standards for cricketers at WP:CRIN, although an argument could be made the other way for WP:GNG reasons. Seems fine in its current state as a likely permanent stub. --Finngall ^talk 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 16:48, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep per WP:NCRIC as a first-class cricketer. The nominator seems unaware of the cricket notability guidelines. St Anselm (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep meets WP:NCRIC as he has played first-class cricket. — Yellow Dingo (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:NCRIC. Joseph2302 22:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment currently it would be debatable if this would pass the GNG. Sources could, however, be found - Leicestershire may well have some and there might well be newspaper references and the like or references in specific written sources about the early Leicestershire seasons or about Australian tours and so on. It seems reasonable then that sources could be found which would lead to this meeting the GNG - as an example, compare this version of the article on Keith Barlow with the current one - and his having played first-class cricket would then convey the sort of notability which might mean that he would meet the GNG. So I'd suggest keeping as an immediate course of action. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2016 (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.