Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chitty (cricketer)
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 
— User:Reyk, 10:19, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NCRICKET||WP:CRIC (Wikipedia:Notability)