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 delete. Consensus that the article meets NCRIC but fails to meet the necessary GNG (I should note that not all articles must meet GNG as well as the SNG, but sports notability specifically states it as a requirement).
Nosebagbear (
talk) 12:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep meets
WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago,
I reminded this editor about the
closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at
WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 21:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (
recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases (including scorecards, not SIGCOV, from which prose has been built); no suitable list to merge into. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:28, 22 January 2021 (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.