Deletion of George Blackmore

Comment: As the nominator, I don't think I'm allowed to vote, but something really fundamental is being overlooked here, and I want to call attention back to it. To wit: I don't think the subject-specific guidelines such as  and  are intended to ''supplant'' basic notability as in ; rather, they are there to ''raise'' the bar, not lower it. They are there to ''rule out'' the athlete who, despite significant secondary coverage, only played in the minors and is therefore not notable. They are not, to my mind, intended to elevate the otherwise-anonymous scrub who played one game in the majors. I hope the cricket project will take to heart the advice of
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:ATH||WP:CRIN||WP:BASIC)

Comment: Rnickel: As the nominator your nom is normally assumed to be a "Delete" !vote except in teh case of purely procedural nominations (as when an editor completes a nom for an IP user, or when someone relists after closing a DRV). As to the supplementary notability guidelines, you are, in general, incorrect. They are intended, in general, to '''lower''' the bar, not raise it. To put it another way, if a subject passes the |general notability guideline, and therefore , there is normally no need to even consider whether the subject passes , , , or any other specific notability guideline, the subject is notable. The supplementary guidelines are either shorthand or bypass. They indicate cases in which either it is highly likely that significant coverage exists so there is no need to look for it, or in which there is consensus that a subject is notable whether the coverage is there or not. For example, mayors of large cities are presumed notable, but are also almost certain to have significant coverage. Bands with multiple released major label albums are presumed notable. Athletes at the Olympic level, or its equivalent in non-Olympic sports, are presumed notable, but usually have significant coverage. Of course, the requirements of  remain, there must be enough sources to verify the content. As to the notability of players who have played in first class cricket but only for a few games, I have no opinion. However, one should remember that for players of the 1940s there may be significant coverage that is not online
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:N||WP:BIO||WP:MUSIC||WP:ATH||WP:V)

Comment: per , as the player played first class cricket. I accept the argument put forward by the nominator, however with Cricket Archive (and CricInfo) entries, and a first class cricket career, he passes cricket player notability guidelines which satisfies me
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN||WP:ATH)