Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Stuck

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 keep. Daniel (talk) 06:08, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

John Stuck

[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)

Nothing notable about him. No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 20:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Would be deemed worthy only of a stub on a cricket Fandom site, and fails all our guidelines completely. RobinCarmody (talk) 18:23, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fails NCRIC, but passes GNG. Would appear to be a lower-level cricketer of some note; many sources available, including an article in Wisden Cricket Monthly [1]. Article expanded. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:32, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - GNG now demonstrated, nice WP:HEY Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:18, 14 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.