Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sattar Bhagat

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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sattar Bhagat

Sattar Bhagat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NATHLETE: BEFORE did not produce demonstrably independent and reliable sources offering significant coverage, and none of the explicit criteria of WP:NATHLETE appear to be met. —swpb^T 14:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —swpb^T 14:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

• Keep. Subject has played first-class cricket and thus meets WP:NCRIC (a subsection of WP:NATHLETE). Sources are always more difficult to find the farther back you get from the internet era (and in non-English-speaking countries in general), but they would definitely exist. CricketArchive (used in the article) and ESPNcricinfo ([1]) are both tertiary sources that demonstrate the existence of those secondary sources. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - can people please stop doing this. To suggest that one former first-class cricketer is more or less notable than another is violation of WP:NPOV, and frankly disruptive. Please explain what makes you believe that the source quoted is not independent or is unreliable. "This article does not cite sources" is an outright lie. Bobo. 14:34, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Note: the above comment is from the creator of this article. —swpb^T 14:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • "This article does not cite sources" is also not something anyone said or came close to saying, so who's lying here? Independence and reliability are two of exactly three criteria explicitly stated in both WP:GNG and my nomination; the other, which you conveniently forgot, is significance of coverage. Two lines of stats confirming that, yes, this player existed, is not significant to me, no matter how independent and reliable it is. You can disagree with that assessment, but you're going to have a very bad time if you keep throwing false accusations. —swpb^T 13:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
    • I stand entirely by what I said. Bobo. 17:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • The subject of the article still needs to meet the GNG. It may be assumed that, given enough time, sources could be found to make this subject meet the GNG, but that is simply an assumption not a black and white statement of fact. NCRIC is a subset of NATH but the FAQ at the top of NATH makes it clear that subjects still have to meet the GNG - and simply having made an appearance in a cricket match does not, by itself, mean that it is automatically met; instead there need to be in suitably in depth sources about the subject of the article. If I don't think an article has a chance of doing that then it is still absolutely legitimate to challenge it and to suggest that it be deleted. I rather get the impression that a number of editors are unaware of the FAQ at the top of the page that NCRIC is on and/or have never actually read it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Unsure - in this case I am unconvinced that suitable secondary, in depth sources would be available. The team that the chap played for only played first-class cricket in the one competition - and from the list of matches appear to have only played two matches during that season, only one of which we have the scorecard for. Given that state of affairs, and that Kalat then don't have a record on CI of playing any cricket between 69/70 and 90/91 I have significant doubts that suitable sources could, in this case, be found. I'd be quite happy to give it some time for someone to try and source some but, frankly, this is the sort of article that needs to be judged rather than simply created because we can/must. We don't have to have a completionist approach - that's why CI and CA are there. I would tend towards delete if I had to make a call on this now, but I would rather give those editors who wish to retain it a chance to find sources first. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:20, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
• Keep passes WP:CRIN as the player has played at first-class level, the highest form of domestic cricket. These AfD's are very much a waste of time excerise, dozens of similar cricketers have been nominated before and all have been kept. It would be helpful if people consulted the community agreed guidelines about cricketers before nominating for deletion; after all, it's why such guidelines exist. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2017 (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.