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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

P. H. Barnes[edit]

P. H. Barnes (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)

No attempt made to improve article after tags added. I had to rename it just now to comply with standard naming convention. Canada has rarely been a first-class team so this may fail WP:NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• According to the Cricinfo link in the article he played in a first-class match for Canada in 1951, so technically passes the cricketing notability guideline. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:48, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the match. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Check Wisden. Presumably, the 1952 printed volume. If Wisden says the match was first-class, he's in. If not, he's out, Narky Blert (talk) 23:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Do you have any reason to doubt the reliability of Cricinfo and the Cricket Archive's claims that this was a first-class match? 86.17.222.157 (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not in this instance. But I have seen a Cricinfo entry where the alleged umpire had been dead for 20+ years. Narky Blert (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, every generally reliable publisher is capable of making the occasional mistake, but that is just as true of Wisden, who once owned Cricinfo and presumably hosted this information at that time, as anyone else. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:16, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC as a first class player. No reason to doubt the reliably sourced info. StAnselm (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• This raises similar issues to those which have been raised before - specifically, does passing WP:NCRIC mean that the subject of an article is by default notable. For me the FAQ at WP:ATH - which is the page NCRIC is on - answers this:

The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them. Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline....

Now, could we find significant, non-routine secondary coverage of PH Barnes - not of this match, but of Barnes? I don't know the answer to that, although I would suggest that it would be difficult to do so. There may be some stuff in local newspapers around the St Catherines area and/or in histories of either Canadian or Ontario cricket. If there was - and it was non-routine coverage about Barnes - then I think I would accept that the subject has enough notability and meets NCRIC as well.

As it is, I'm not at all certain that we would be able to source such information in "sufficient" time. I would probably lean towards delete as much as anything on the grounds of the FAQ suggesting quite clearly to me that simply because a player technically meets NCRIC it doesn't mean, per se, that they have notability, just that such notability mighe be presumed if sources are available. But I would certainly be willing to provide time to find sources and it might, in the meantime, be sensible to consider an article on the MCC tour to Canada in 1951 (along the lines of Marylebone Cricket Club cricket team in Bangladesh in 1980–81) in order to provide some kind of placeholder for what are probably going to be a limited number of dubious notability cases - the MCC team included at least two Test players and played a number of matches, although this was the only one CA categorises as anything other than miscellaneous Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC as a first-class player. Match is recorded in full in Wisden 1952 edition (pp901–2) with a note that it was accorded first-class status in November 1951. The reason we have such a clear line in NCRIC on cricket player notability is to avoid the kind of agonising above. Johnlp (talk) 13:47, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That's clearly not what the FAQ on WP:ATH says - my rationale above explains that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:26, 12 December 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.