Talk:Chitty (cricketer)

Proposed merge with List of English cricketers (1787–1825)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The unanimous result of this discussion was to merge the content Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

---

The closure of the AfD for this article as no consensus and the subsequent discussions on the talk page of the closing admin, suggests that there needs to be a discussion about merging the article. Given that there have been numerous edits redirecting the article since the closure of the AfD it seems best to have a sensible discussion to try to agree some kind of action. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:15, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support- obviously. The fact is that this article was not even a biography, just a scorecard bloated into prose. And the AfD clearly came to a working consensus that this is not suitable for a stand-alone article. A merge seems the only reasonable way forward from here. Reyk _YO! 16:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support No encyclopedic information is being lost by merging to List of English cricketers (1787–1825) - everything that can currently be said about him is there. If any other sources are found, the article could be spun back out and expanded.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 16:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support. I agree with all the above. The list entry is fine though it might look better if it was tabulated. To my mind, there is no point in having an article that is simply a report of one player's performance in a single match when all that is known of the player is his surname. Oh, and I'm told he was apparently not a gentleman or he would have been Chitty, Esq. in the scorecard. Ha! Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 16:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Since outright deletion is not a likely outcome, then at least merge it into something useful. This is hypothetically a biographical article. Name? unknown. D.O.B and D.O.D? unknown. Any other personal details? unknown. Ok... not a good start. How about career details? Batting? unknown. Bowling? unknown, but somehow it's known to be underarm. Role? unknown. Years active? 1800... for one known match. Performance for that match? "not 0", and a catch. *Plays gif of Captain Picard face palm* A short rant: In no other field can I imagine such a lacklustre standard of notability upheld as it is in sports, on Wikipedia. In no other sport can I find such a lacklustre standard of notability upheld as it is in cricket, on Wikipedia. This is the bottom step, of the lowest ladder. Mr rnddude (talk) 17:13, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support As the one who suggested this in the AfD page, there are reasonable doubts this article will ever amount to more than a stub, despite how much padding is added. If we are wrong, & further research uncovers more information about this person, we can always revert the redirect to a proper article. As an addendum, List of English cricketers (1787–1825) has a number of links to other stubs that should be merged to this article.

  I just had a look at the target for this merge. Someone has done the merge, but in an inartful manner. We don't need the contents of this article cut-n-pasted into this list. -- llywrch (talk) 17:33, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

  • That was me. Yes, I'd be happy to trim the bloat by three-quarters but if I did that I'd likely be burned at the stake. Better, I think, to do a maximal merge and then, when the structure of the list becomes clearer, clean up. Reyk _YO! 17:42, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I was considering trimming it by quite a lot myself - it'll be there in the history if someone wants it back at all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:18, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
    • @Reyk:, I added my suggestion for what I was picturing on the Talk page. While that might be a bit too sparse in details, it provides an idea of what I was proposing. -- llywrch (talk) 19:01, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support merge. Per the reasons above; fundamentally, also per my remark at the AfD that we—none of us—actually know whom it is that we are bestowing notability on. An interesting circ., de soleil  :) ——SerialNumber54129 17:38, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

• His name was Chitty. /s Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Their name was Chitty, Randy Kryn--but which one is the article about... ——SerialNumber54129 07:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

• Support per SNOW. Now this is the way to do it, not that earlier article and closer talk page whatever it was, making me go to the 3RR limit before finally doing what should have been done right after the first revert, and bringing this merge request to this section of this talk page. When merged, it would be good will to Chitty, ole chap, to do a proper merge and keep most if not all of what was summarized. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Support Good solution to a bad problem. Harrias ^talk 09:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
• Snow support It is an utter farce that some people think that someone is notable enough for an article despite their name not even being known! It completely baffles me why playing in a single game of a sport - even if their name did happen to be recorded! - makes one notable on Wikipedia for all time. These sorts of individuals whose supposed fame is only known in a meaningless game notes or database do not pass the GNG and should not have any so-called presumed notability. Reywas92^Talk 06:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)
• I'm inclined to set up the redirect for this and, if necessary, edit the text down along the lines suggested on the destination talk page tomorrow unless anyone thinks it's a good idea to keep it open for longer. That'll be the 7 days and, given the support, I think it's probably a reasonable solution. Blue Square Thing (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.