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. --Stormie (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Wynne-Thomas[edit]

Peter Wynne-Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete. No verifiable sources, breach of WP:BIO and WP:RS especially as the ACS self-publishes its members' work; article reads like he is a dedicated committeeman (as member of a group, not notable) who gets his work published by his group; nothing to say that his work has any real importance or notability; nothing to conclude that ACS should be exempted from WP:RS's publication requirements BlackJack | ^{talk page} 21:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A quick bit of research throws up enough mentions of the guy to give him some degree of notability. He has published a variety of books (by various publishers, including Hodder & Staunton, as shown by the Amazon reference), is cited by BBC Sport as a cricket historian, and was a founding member and significant part of ACS. He meets several of the criteria in WP:Bio. It's a curious nomination by BlackJack, given that he created the article in 2005 and has worked on it several times over the last two years. SilkTork *^SilkyTalk 22:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A fair point but I only introduced the article as a stub based on what someone else told me (never a good basis) and it has not really developed. I have doubts about its compliance with WP:RS in particular but you have done some useful research and things are looking better for the article now.

• Delete We cannot have articles for all cricket-related stuff. Cricket is only popular in some parts of the World. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 10:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. By that logic nearly all articles in Wikipedia would have to go. Anything to do with sport, culture, religion and many other subject areas are "only popular in some parts of the World". Phil Bridger (talk) 12:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting idea Masterpiece 2000. Obviously, by the same token, all the articles on American Football, Ice Hockey and Baseball would have to go first as cricket is played and watched by far more people than these minority sports. I daresay Sachin Tendulkar is a bit more famous than most Governors of Connecticut too, so I look forward to your AfD nominations of all those articles. As this is the English language wikipedia, and given cricket's history in the English speaking world, I think it's a notable subject, heck even some sociologists have written about it. Nick mallory (talk) 12:49, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although I recommended deletion, I would rather that Masterpiece2000 withdrew his vote, quite frankly. If we are going to vote then lets vote on the basis of sound, valid and logical reasons. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 13:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Needs tidying and verifying where indicated, with proper references. But this chap has been central to efforts to collate and organise cricket stats in the past 35 years and his publishing credits include learned works and populist books from mainstream publishers. Johnlp (talk) 10:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It is no good just saying that he has done this and done that. That was the mistake I made originally (see above). The bottom line here is that the article must comply with WP:RS in particular. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 11:12, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Has been regularly cited in the press as an expert [1]. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If you delete all references to the ACS you are still left with his authorship of some substantial cricket histories and statistical works, notably the Hamlyn A-Z of Cricket Records and his biography of Arthur Shrewsbury. A search on his name at Amazon UK throws up 43 matches, though no doubt some are different editions of the same book. Surely belonging to the ACS does not automatically make a person non-notable?! JH (talk page) 14:02, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• A definite keep. Tintin 02:44, 31 December 2007 (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.