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.
Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not
WP:GNG, but
WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing many first class and List A cricket matches. This shouldn't even be a discussion.
DevaCat1 (
talk)
17:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete none of the sources are close to meeting GNG. The cricket guidelines have been shown to be junk that in no way predict meeting GNG. These are the only debates I have seen where editors think that such sub-standard sourcing is a good way to keep articles. It is not.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:52, 2 March 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.