Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Plant

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 procedural keep. No prejudice to immediate separate renominations to discuss the merits of each subject. ✗plicit 12:45, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Plant

[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)

Technically passes NFOOTY due to an FLT appearance, but clearly fails

WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. J Mo 101 (talk) 09:22, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 09:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Trout for the nominator for this kind of bundling. When arguing 'passes NFOOTBALL but fails GNG' it's better to consider each article separately. Giant Snowman 09:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. Happy to withdraw this nomination and relist separately if that's how things are normally done. J Mo 101 (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to 2017–18 Wigan Athletic F.C. season#Statistics as we have done in other similar AFDs. Giant Snowman 09:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all meet NFOOTBALL. If these are the rare exceptiont that meet NFOOTBALL but should still be deleted, we need to discuss each separately. Nfitz (talk) 00:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in principle, nominate these individually.--Ortizesp (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets NFOOTBALL. Zanoni (talk) 13:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep Each article should be independently assessed, biographies should never be bundled. Govvy (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - more productive to discuss these separately. Some may pass GNG, some may fail. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:45, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all none have the level of significant coverage to justify keeping the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2022 (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.