Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Flower


 * 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 Middlesex County Cricket Club. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī   (talk)|undefined  00:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Flower

 * – ( View AfD View log )

secretary of a cricket club, not claim to notability. Rusf10 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 00:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Middlesex_County_Cricket_Club. StickyWicket (talk) 08:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Middlesex County Cricket Club There is some coverage from his role as club secretary, but not enough to pass GNG and some of it comes from Middlesex/Lords/MCC anyway. Redirect a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 10:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep. Being the secretary of Middlesex for 16 years from 1964 to 1980 (See https://www.espncricinfo.com/wisdenalmanack/content/story/228604.html) is important enough. Tintin 17:33, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Added a couple of small citations.Tintin 17:45, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which part of WP:NCRIC is satisfied by him being a secretary?--Rusf10 (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * About admins in WikiProject Cricket/Notability Tintin 19:47, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One WikiProject's explanatory supplement to a subguideline of a guideline that is itself subordinate to the GNG is not a sound policy argument. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect, per Rugbyfan. SIGCOV needs to be established here and it is clearly not. JoelleJay (talk) 01:41, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.