Deletion of Tom Cranston

Comment: fails  clearly lacks |significant coverage in reliable sources.Further the subject has played just 1 List A cricket match and scored 18 runs which is an insignificant contribution and is 33 years and not clear if still plays cricket.He comprehensively fails  through may scrape  on basis of the one match
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:CRIN)

Comment: as per . We were having a considerable amount of debate a while back and we realized that the two notability guideline pages completely contradict each other, and such is the problem in this case. This is not a problem with  but with the policy makers
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN||WP:CRIN)

Comment: to 2002_Cheltenham_%26_Gloucester_Trophy#First_round. He was part of notable event with any doubt but scoring only 18 runs in your only List A match is not enough to be part of multiple non-trivial coverage. Similarly, we don't create article on everyone who was part of the cast of a notable film. Instead, we have article when he/she has done major role in multiple films. Secondly, we don't have article for individual who was part of notable event like terrorist attacks. Instead, we redirect them to the event for which they were notable. I suggest we should do this for modern cricketers. Redirecting and adding categories to the entry will be better than deleting because afterall he passes . Thanks
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: fails , no evidence article subject has been the subject of |significant coverage in reliable sources. The reliable sources provided prove that the subject passes, narrowly, the requirements of  however this is not significant coverage per , being made up of Wikipedia:ROUTINE|Routine game coverage. Subject-specific notability guidelines are designed to provide a guide as to whether a subject might pass . This is useful for older topics when access to reliable sources may not have been readily available however this is a modern sportsman whose career is currently underway. The fact that significant coverage can not be found for a contemporary sportsman suggests that the subject is not notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NSPORTS||WP:SPORTSBASIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: an as-yet unquoted guideline: "A sportsperson is '''presumed''' to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition or won a significant honor and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." (, my emphasis). Perhaps this is the source I intended to mention when I said that there was contradictory information as to whether sportspeople automatically bypassed GNG... Courtesy ping to {{ping|Premeditated Chaos}}, {{ping|Harrias}}, {{ping|Hack}}. My fault for not seeking this out before. My personal belief is that this contradictory information completely invalidates WP:GNG and  equally. My on-wiki time is currently limited by outside forces
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPORTSPERSON)

Comment: as failing . Meeting NSPORT is not an alternative to meeting GNG; it merely means there's a good reason to think that an athlete does meet GNG when sources not in the article (or not easily available online) are taken into consideration. In this case, even the keep voters haven't argued that this presumption is actually right in this specific case.The GNG-NSPORT relationship has been discussed ad nauseam, including quite recently in this Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 135#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive|very long VPP discussion where the consensus on this was affirmed
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: ping|Premeditated Chaos}}, {{ping|Bobo192}}, {{ping|Hack}}, {{ping|Pharaoh of the Wizards}}, {{ping|Harrias}}, {{ping|Reyk}} I'm against deletion of any cricketer bio which passes . Redirecting to better target for such cases will be better for the project. We will keep his name in the list such as List of Herefordshire County Cricket Club List A players which he deserves rather deletion altogether. I think this could be good starting point to sort out notability related issues of modern cricketer. Calling for deletion will not solve issues mentioned. We generally redirect Playboy Playmates to the list for which they are notable. For example, Michelle McLaughlin is redirected to List of Playboy Playmates of 2008. They all are one line biographies. So, doing something like that will be useful for the project. I hope other who voted delete will understand the problem. Any good suggestion will be welcomed. Thanks
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)