Deletion of Chitty (cricketer)

Comment: or merge to (a single sentence in) any relevant article.  This fails even the lowest interpretation of GNG, and failing GNG so completely matters, because if you can't pass GNG, then you can't actually write a decent encyclopedia article.  This article fails :  it is not a subject about which enough verifiable information can be found to write an encyclopedia article.  Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not an indiscriminate, all-inclusive database with a separate record for each person who can be documented to have ever played one game.  Think about what's being defended here:  The thoughtless "Keep per NCRICKET" votes are asking us to have a completely separate, stand-alone page for someone about whom almost nothing is known, or will ever be known.  We literally don't even know whether "Chitty" is his first name, last name, nickname, or only name.  This is not a suitable subject for a proper encyclopedia article.  Should this player be in Wikipedia somewhere?  Sure.  Should this player be on a separate, stand-alone page?  No
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WHYN)

Comment: Passes , which is sufficient for notability (as the nominator appears to agree
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC)

Comment: Passes |Golden Rule
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything (WP:GOLDENRULE)

Comment: haven't looked at this page or Chitty's page for a few days, and am glad to see the article expanded. I hope the closer isn't underwhelmed by the delete comments here, and remembers that '''the page passes'''  which is all they need to know
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRICKET)

Comment: Not only do I see no  for this, we already have this article:  Joseph William Chitty
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: If you want to change  or , then start a discussion or RfC there. According to those guidelines, he is notable
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:CRICN)

Comment: The key policy here is  which states that "''If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page ... Articles that are short and unlikely to be expanded could be merged into larger articles or lists.''"  Some good improvements have been made to the page in the course of discussion per  and so we see that such improvement is feasible and so the page should be kept for further development.    is only a guideline and so is weaker than this policy, but, in considering the notability issues, it is clear that CRIC takes precedence over  per the legal principle ''Lex specialis|lex specialis derogat legi generali''.  The detail about the number of players in the game is irrelevant because, when first-class cricket was formally defined in 1947, its formula was explicitly not retrospective and so the status of earlier games was not changed.  The game in question was clearly of top quality, being from an era when ''https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Jubilee_Book_of_Cricket/Chapter_10 the county was so strong ... that Surrey frequently had to contend against Fourteen of England
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:HEY||WP:N||WP:NCRIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: I think I have to clear up some fundamental misunderstandings here. Passing a SNG does not '''guarantee''' notability; it merely yields a rebuttable presumption. Furthermore, the fact that  was rammed into the SNGs with minimal discussion means that it cannot be considered binding on the community. What we have here is a virtually empty microstub on an obscure cricketer with sourcing so meager that it doesn't even allow the subject to be unambiguously identified. The sole "source" in the article does not contain a single word of prose. This article is essentially a few cells of an excel spreadsheet bloated grotesquely. I could support the creation of list articles where these bare statistical entries could be included. But I can support neither the creation of empty stubs on people whose names we don't even know, nor the continued misleading pretense that "meets my pet over-inclusive guideline = 100% ironclad guaranteed notability". I now eagerly await the usual barrage of abuse from 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRICKET||WP:CRIC)

Comment: The page is acceptable for Wikipedia because it uses Arthur Haygarth's work as a source. It is a stub, per , a type of article allowed in Wikipedia. Editor's calling for deletion are disregarding both  and the acceptance of stubs in the encyclopedia, each a reason to keep the page
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Stub (WP:STUB||WP:CRIC)

Comment: Procedural keep. Nominator admits it meets , therefore by extension : {{xt|"It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right"}}. Meeting  is not required
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRICKET||WP:N||WP:GNG)

Comment: meets . This guideline does not disciminate between 100, 10 or 1 first-class appearance and works perfectly well. If it ain't broke, don't fix it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: SNG is best thought of as a shortcut for GNG not a replacement. Power~enwiki points out that  isn't a pillar or core content policy but it is an incredibly important guideline and deserves some deference. This is one of the exceptions to the presumption of notability that the SNG gives - exceptions that I think are important for maintaining some level of community support for SNGs in the first place. Best
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N)

Comment: passes . You say "Trivial pass of ". Well, trivial, just over the line, barely passes, give me a leg up, or however the nominator wants to label it, "trivial pass" means "pass
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRICKET)

Comment: Passes cricket notability standards, and now borderline  now with two historical sources and a scorecard, passing . When I first saw the article, I didn't vote, but would have voted delete, but now am giving a benefit of the doubt to the SNG and due to the historical nature of the encyclopedia entry. (As an aside, how many articles do we have about sportspeople from over 200 years ago
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:V)

Comment: a SNG only provides a rebuttable presumption that notability ''should'' be satisfied under , but in this case, barring any new sources, that presumption has been rebutted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)