Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Troy Dudnath

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Dudnath[edit]

[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)

Despite passing WP:NCRIC, the article clearly fails WP:GNG as I struggled to find any sources for this player. HawkAussie (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd agree that there's little or no chance of this meeting GNG in a meaningful way. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails all meaningful notability guidelines. NCRIC only provides a very weak presumption of notability for low-level international cricketers and by consensus that presumption is is unreliable, so GNG (and/or a different SNG) must be met – and this doesn't. The only sources we have are databases and routine match coverage which do not establish notability per SPORTCRIT. No value in redirecting anywhere. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the complete failure of GNG is of much greater importance than the borderline and trivial passing of NCRIC Spiderone 17:56, 31 December 2020 (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.