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 redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Williams (cricketer)[edit]

Christopher Williams (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:11, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players Has played 1 List-A match, but I couldn't find any coverage. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player who has played 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. I make that all 5 of todays listings that should have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:04, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong redirect per Rugbyfan22 and per WP:ATD. Another pointless AfD. Deus et lex (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players as per all. Grailcombs (talk) 18:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete another in a very long line of articles that do not meet GNG. GNG is the minimum requirement to have any article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:49, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - this is yet another in a very long line of unhelpful Lambert contributions and should be given very little weight. Deus et lex (talk) 10:42, 8 April 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.