Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David A. Tall

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. Tone 10:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

David A. Tall

[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, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 08:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - As i've said before, these English-team cricketers are a wee bit different. Let's not be too hasty in mass-nominating these without looking first. Bobo . 11:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Fails WP:NCRIC - has not "played at the highest [...] domestic level". Minor counties are not the highest level, it's in the name. Also, the first round of the NatWest Trophy was clearly not the highest level of English domestic one-day cricket in 1992, there were two other leagues primarily contested by County Championship teams. This would be like describing the first round of the FA Cup as the highest level of English football. 120.16.63.71 (talk) 11:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total fail of GNG. It is time we stop giving special preference to people from England, that is a key source of our systemic bias.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my point. My point is that it should be easier to find sources for English players. Bobo . 20:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wholly non-notable, and I could not agree more with JPL here. Arguments that see systematic bias as perfectly OK have to be discounted. RobinCarmody (talk) 19:37, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective sources for a BLP article. scope_creep^Talk 17:40, 11 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.