- 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Jon Cade
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jon Cade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. A thoroughgoing failure of all notability guidelines and rules. RobinCarmody ( talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, playing for one of the minor counties does not meet this standard; in addition Cade's solitary LA match was against a cricket board side, further confirming the lower standard of the match. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and inclusion in the usual wide-ranging databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. wjemather please leave a message... 11:57, 15 February 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.
- 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. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:45, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Jon Cade
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Jon Cade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Nothing in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. A thoroughgoing failure of all notability guidelines and rules. RobinCarmody ( talk) 20:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
- Delete. Fails NCRIC due to not having played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of the status afforded matches, playing for one of the minor counties does not meet this standard; in addition Cade's solitary LA match was against a cricket board side, further confirming the lower standard of the match. More importantly this also fails GNG, with no significant coverage found (only passing mentions in local routine cricket reports, and inclusion in the usual wide-ranging databases) and no reason to expect that any exists. wjemather please leave a message... 11:57, 15 February 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.