355:. My reading of WP:CRIN suggests notability. In addition to Leicestershire, the player represented the "Thursday Club" and that was evidently a forerunner of the Middlesex county team. I don't believe "first-class" status is applicable to games in that period but I think any player who took part in them deserves an article as the matches were major events at the time. The source is Arthur Haygarth's
208:- I'm not an expert on this period, but I know that the line between "major" and "minor" matches this far back can be difficult to draw. The fact that these three matches were all two innings, two day affairs suggests that they were reasonably significant. I believe that Nottingham, against whom he played for Leicester, was one of the strongest clubs around at this time. Also see
405:. Haygarth himself wrote: "There is certainly one great mistake, or rather oversight. Which I made during the 50 years and upwards in which I was engaged on the Cricket Scores and Biographies, and it is this -- I preserved too many matches of an inferior calabre by far." (Quoted with these spellings and punctuations in his obit in
413:
has been extending its "approval" of matches back from its previous arbitrary date of 1801 and now has a lot of 18th century matches that it considers "major"; in that
Cricketarchive reflects the ACS research, it's a bit uncomfortable that approval appears not to have been given, so far at least, to
185:
The article states that
Jackson played major cricket, which when this article was created may well have been correct. A look on CricketArchive shows the player has not played any major cricket (for Jackson it would be first-class cricket), so it seems the status of the matches he played in has been
308:
That's an interesting view. In line with the rest of
Knowledge (XXG), the cricket WikiProject has always argued that someone who is or was verifiably notable should have their own article. You seem to be saying the chap is notable but because the article is unlikely to grow it should be merged. Is
225:
Appreciate that major cricket is difficult to define, but cricket archive is not the sole authority on cricket statistics. If we have RS that says he's notable (we do) cricket archive's lack of mention of him is not a conclusive reason for deletion, or we fall heavily into POV and OR territory.
293:
to a suitable list. These one line stubs of cricketers where little is known of the subject and there is no reasonable chance of expansion are becoming increasingly harder to defend. There is nothing in this article that could not be more succinctly placed in a list of cricketers. --
331:
Maybe the article will remain one sentence for the next two centuries, maybe more detail will be added tomorrow. Either way I don't think listyfying (Sp) short articles is the way to go. WP can never be complete so short articles aren't a problem.
154:
148:
88:
83:
92:
401:
has it right in the first comment, above, I think: the line between major and minor is difficult to draw. I worry a bit about a cricketer whose notability rests only on a reference in
75:
267:
410:
115:
244:
169:
414:
the matches
Jackson appeared in. Deleting him would be no great loss; recreating him in the event of a later ACS ruling would be no great difficulty.
136:
212:, suggersting that Leicester had a fairly high status. And the other two matches were against MCC at Lord's, which gives them a certain cachet. JH (
359:
which has much greater credibility than
Cricket Archive. Having said that, has anyone been able to check the book for references to this player? --
209:
130:
440:
423:
385:
367:
341:
318:
303:
282:
259:
235:
217:
199:
57:
126:
17:
176:
79:
71:
63:
406:
195:
455:
142:
36:
454:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
191:
309:
that right? If so, I disagree - you're crystal balling and arguing against cornerstone policies. --
299:
162:
53:
314:
278:
255:
231:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
187:
431:. Don't need to bother with the definitions - no guideline or policy exists, refs are fine.
419:
213:
436:
402:
381:
361:
337:
295:
49:
310:
274:
251:
227:
109:
415:
398:
432:
377:
333:
448:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
105:
101:
97:
376:
Think we have to assume good faith with the book ref.
161:
175:
268:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
458:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
266:Note: This debate has been included in the
245:list of Cricket-related deletion discussions
243:Note: This debate has been included in the
265:
242:
210:Leicestershire and Rutland Cricket Club
186:downgraded, meaning he no longer meets
72:J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer)
64:J. Jackson (Leicestershire cricketer)
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
475:
441:15:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
424:22:29, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
386:15:33, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
368:21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
342:21:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
319:08:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
304:20:27, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
283:16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
260:16:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
236:10:05, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
218:09:00, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
58:16:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
200:21:18, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
451:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
357:Score and Biographies
192:AssociateAffiliate
44:The result was
285:
271:
262:
248:
466:
453:
364:
272:
249:
180:
179:
165:
113:
95:
34:
474:
473:
469:
468:
467:
465:
464:
463:
462:
456:deletion review
449:
362:
122:
86:
70:
67:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
472:
470:
461:
460:
444:
443:
426:
391:
390:
389:
388:
371:
370:
349:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
324:
323:
322:
321:
287:
286:
263:
239:
238:
220:
183:
182:
119:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
471:
459:
457:
452:
446:
445:
442:
438:
434:
430:
427:
425:
421:
417:
412:
408:
404:
400:
396:
393:
392:
387:
383:
379:
375:
374:
373:
372:
369:
366:
365:
358:
354:
351:
350:
343:
339:
335:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
320:
316:
312:
307:
306:
305:
301:
297:
292:
289:
288:
284:
280:
276:
269:
264:
261:
257:
253:
246:
241:
240:
237:
233:
229:
224:
221:
219:
215:
211:
207:
204:
203:
202:
201:
197:
193:
189:
178:
174:
171:
168:
164:
160:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
141:
138:
135:
132:
128:
125:
124:Find sources:
120:
117:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
450:
447:
428:
394:
360:
356:
352:
290:
222:
205:
184:
172:
166:
158:
151:
145:
139:
133:
123:
45:
43:
31:
28:
409:1904.) The
149:free images
296:Mattinbgn
275:• Gene93k
252:• Gene93k
214:talk page
206:weak keep
50:causa sui
403:Haygarth
116:View log
395:Comment
311:Dweller
228:Dweller
188:WP:CRIN
155:WP refs
143:scholar
89:protect
84:history
416:Johnlp
407:Wisden
127:Google
93:delete
433:Szzuk
378:Szzuk
334:Szzuk
291:Merge
170:JSTOR
131:books
110:views
102:watch
98:links
16:<
437:talk
429:Keep
420:talk
382:talk
363:Mike
353:Keep
338:talk
315:talk
300:talk
279:talk
256:talk
232:talk
223:Keep
196:talk
163:FENS
137:news
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
54:talk
46:keep
411:ACS
177:TWL
114:– (
439:)
422:)
399:JH
397:.
384:)
340:)
317:)
302:)
281:)
273:—
270:.
258:)
250:—
247:.
234:)
226:--
216:)
198:)
190:.
157:)
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
56:)
48:.
435:(
418:(
380:(
336:(
313:(
298:(
277:(
254:(
230:(
194:(
181:)
173:·
167:·
159:·
152:·
146:·
140:·
134:·
129:(
121:(
118:)
112:)
74:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.