Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Foot

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. Daniel (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Foot

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing notable about him. Störm (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please consider sending players from English teams to WT:CRIC first. There will be people who can find information from more places than myself. Bobo . 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because you are incapable of finding information yourself does not mean it doesn't exist. AfD should never be the reflex reaction. AfD debates are not the way to get articles improved. Take these issues to other places first. Bobo . 10:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is a proactive guideline that must be passed by all articles. We do not keep articles just because people think there might be sourcing, we keep them because sourcing has been identified. Keeping an article on a vague claim that sources are out there somewhere inherently violates verrifiability and opens us up to hoaxes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If people want sources to be found they need to go to the proper place to ask and/or find them. Refusal to do so shows a lack of will to interact with the community. Bobo . 18:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A wholly non-notable figure in the context of a broad encyclopaedia. RobinCarmody (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My search for references did not find any. The hurdle is
WP:NCRICKET and even without references nothing in the article suggest he meets it. Jeepday (talk) 18:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HistoricalAccountings (talk) 23:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable player. Tbyros (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, minor counties cricket does not meet this standard. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found and no reason to expect that any exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:19, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability. lack of references. LucyLucy (talk) 04:50, 15 February 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.