Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 19:58, 2 August 2022

WikiProject Cricket

2.4% List-Class
64.1% Stub-Class
30% Start-Class
1.9% C-Class
0.7% B-Class
0.3% GA-Class
0.6% FA-Class
0.1% remaining

Shortcut

WP:DSC

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Cricket. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Cricket|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Cricket. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Sources for articles

Do you see a cricket article here which you think has been wrongly nominated and is notable? Please check out The Library for potential sources to be added to expand an article.

Cricket

Articles for deletion

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 List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers. It is not substantially contested here that the kind of sources required by WP:GNG have not been found after two weeks of searching. That being the case, the "keep" opinions are so weak that they have to be discounted: they use arguments now rejected by community consensus, i.e., that playing at a certain level of sports automatically establishes notability. That the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet invalidates their opinion, but not that of the other participants in this AfD. Sandstein 09:57, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cheraldine Oudolf

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and Netherlands. Sistorian (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I found exactly 2 sources in which she is mentioned, I don't think this meets WP:SIGCOV. W C M_email 08:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Bizarre nomination. Played in two World Cups, holds the Dutch record for best women's ODI bowling figures. Beeeggs (talk) 11:06, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to change my comment if you can provide sources. I suggested delete because after searching for sources I find 2 google hits. I did my own name and got 900,000. W C M_email 12:42, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I too had no luck on Google. I do not see what is bizarre, or even wrong, about nominating an article that so completely fails the significant coverage requirement. In my opinion, we must place emphasis on quality over quantity. I doubt if you will find Cheraldine in Britannica, for example. Articles about cricketers are fine if there is significant coverage because the player is well known or has accomplished an outstanding achievement, but to try and fill mainspace with articles like this is a waste of mainspace. The little we know about Cheraldine could be included in a list of Dutch players and that would be sufficient.

Sistorian (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers Must say I'm surprised at the lack of coverage in a simple search, so at redirect for now. If something is found please let me know and I'll reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sending international sportspeople to AfD without goes to show what we have become as a project. This player participated in two World Cups and has 36 WODI appearances. "I can't find any sources myself so I'll send to AfD" is not the way these things should be handled - the cricket Wikiproject is very good at finding secondary sources when necessary and prompted to do so. Of course more work needs to be put into research about women's cricket in general - but this is the nature of the sport. Bobo . 00:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bobo. Thank you for your comments here and at the Meston case. I have been reading WP:ATD on the deletion policy page and I am beginning to think a different approach is needed. I still need to do a lot of research to get my head around the site's policies, guidelines and advice essays but I do have an idea.

Take a case like Cheraldine where the article is three short sentences of basic information lifted from a single statistical database site. As it is currently written, the article definitely fails WP:SIGCOV. As I said above, I cannot find anything else about Cheraldine online. She is an experienced international player, though, so there must be information in book, magazine and newspaper sources. Those, I fully accept, will be difficult and time-consuming to find.

Suppose I tag the article with the notability template banner and then add it to a list of cricket articles needing attention? I leave it alone for six months and then, if it is still three short statistical sentences, I do a straight redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers as suggested by Rugbyfan22? No need to involve AFD at all and, as you have requested, the cricket project sees the issue by monitoring the list and has six months to respond.

I became interested in AFD after reading the Lugnuts/Lambert cases at the Arbitration Committee. From that, I know there is going to be a reaction to the stubs created by Lugnuts although there are concerns about AFD being deluged. I would like to help with the initiative because I believe in quality over quantity and I have submitted six cases to AFD in the last few days to gain some experience of the process.

That is where I am coming from. I do not think short "stubs" like the Cheraldine article benefit the site's reputation; instead, they are an actual constraint. A reader wants useful information, more than so-and-so is a Dutch cricketer born when and where who has played in ODI matches for her country. Articles like that convince the readers that Wikipedia is a waste of space and they go away.

I do not know if my idea is practical because it might be out of process in some way. I need to fully understand what is in process. I will be happy to discuss further, of course. Thank you for your suggestions which most certainly provided me with food for thought. Best wishes.

Sistorian (talk) 05:45, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't say much more than that what happens at AfD is much more than just a single situation, and for one reason or another, it has been causing issues within the cricket section for many years. Some situations resolve and some don't. Comme ci comme ca. There are more editors out there than just Lugnuts and JPL. There is still so much scope for article creation within our project, and, should you feel the need to help out, or can add more information, our project is always needing more fresh contributors. Unfortunately this and the Meston case do not work together as a single argument - international women's and domestic men's cricket are two much different animals. As I say, much more needs to be done in the world of women's international cricket, but that does not make it an invalid subject for contribution. Bobo . 08:20, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers, per ATD. In the absence of significant coverage in secondary sources, that is required to demonstrate notability per BASIC/GNG, and nothing to hint that such coverage NEXISTs, we have a suitable redirect target for this BLP. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting by request
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:09, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Beeeggs. I have added her record to the article. Note also that the nominator is a blocked sockpuppet. St Anselm (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Netherlands women ODI cricketers due to lack of WP:SIGCOV for the subject to pass WP:GNG. Alvaldi (talk) 19:47, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the AfD is surely invalidated by the nominator being a confirmed sockpuppet... Bobo . 08:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, this will give the cricket project a chance to find SIGCOV if it exists. JoelleJay (talk) 03:53, 16 August 2022 (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.

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sistorian (talk) 09:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Clark

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. Of the three sources, one is a dead link, one is a closed statistical database and one is an open statistical database.

Sistorian (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator (WP:WDAFD). I accept the work done by the cricket editors to find additional sources justifies consensus to retain the article.

Sistorian (talk) 08:54, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket, and New Zealand. Sistorian (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Dead links often have archived versions available, like this one: [1] Indignant Flamingo (talk) 20:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Indignant Flamingo. I forgot about Wayback. However, the mentions of Jackie Clark are routine only and I still think there is a lack of significant coverage in the article.

Sistorian (talk) 21:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: she is mentioned here but the whole point of that article is that there isn't much coverage on her. I strongly suspect that significant coverage is provided in The Warm Sun on My Face: The Story of Women's Cricket in New Zealand, but I don't have access to it. StAnselm (talk) 21:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I have a copy of that book on order, but it'll be a couple of weeks before I'll get hold of it. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 13:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily notable as an international women's cricketer playing at the highest level. You know, it really does baffle me that people can't see this and take a step back and for moment think they might be notable, given the level they played at. There is a Cricket Project which can help. User:Sammyrice - another notable New Zealand cricketer, do you have any additional sources to hand? StickyWicket (talk) 06:19, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given her notable career, I'm sure there must have been plenty of stuff about her in the NZ media at the time, but as it was before the Internet age the problem lies in accessing it, especially for those of us not living in NZ. JH (talk page) 06:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this annotated bibliography, this article: McLeod, Marion. "Stumping a myth", Listener 120(2497):26-28 (December 26, 1987) is mostly about Jackie Clark. But note that that article specifically discusses "lack of media coverage". So maybe it's a situation where we feel there should have been (more) coverage, and some people at the time maybe even agreed with that, but the coverage that definitely exists from that time seems to confirm that there was a lack of coverage. In the immortal words of Castor Troy, "what a predicament!" Indignant Flamingo (talk) 07:20, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does that mean that the Listener article, which we know to be about her, discussing the lack of coverage of her is the sorts of significant coverage that we need to keep the article we have on her? We don't need to actually be able to access the article or to include anything from it in the article, only to know that it's about her (I think, the whole NEXIST thing is something else where the goalposts seem to have moved quite randomly for me). It's unlikely that we'll be able to access a magazine article from 1987 electronically, and it may be a bit niche for NZ libraries beyond the really big ones. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NZ do have the Papers Past digitised library but its newspapers section only goes to 1979 and the other sections didn't turn up anything when I searched for Jackie Clark or Jacqueline Clark. She is briefly mentioned in this article that laments the lack of information about women's cricket in NZ. I think we would always have to verify that the "Stumping a myth" article in the Listener has significant coverage on Clark, maybe the NZ Wikiproject could help? The article is available at the National Library in Wellington and possibly other libraries according to this. Alvaldi (talk) 09:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage of stories seems to drop off at PapersPast after the 1950s from my experience. I'll look at The Times archive when I get the chance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StickyWicket. W C M_email 08:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to New Zealand women's national cricket team if no sources can be found at this time. Alvaldi (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep extended career for one of the leading women's international teams at the time. Beeeggs (talk) 11:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - International cricketer. No other rationale required. Of course more information needs to be dug up about women's cricket - but that's true everywhere, not just in this situation. Bobo . 11:49, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With the sourcing we've already found, and what we'll likely find in a more in depth search it looks to be a clear GNG pass. There is a suitable redirect if required though, although I don't think this will be needed. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the Listener article mentioned above provides the significant coverage needed to pass NSPORT. St Anselm (talk) 16:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played 11 Test matches and 31 ODIs for New Zealand. Clearly notable. Paora (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her significant international career makes her notable. The gaps in her article can always be filled in. This is what we have always done with male cricketers; I hope we are not going to treat women differently.Sammyrice (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the coverage we've got here I think there's enough to keep this, especially as it helps to redress some of the systematic bias. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:09, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well. Consensus is this article should be retained and, as a woman cricketer myself, I am pleased about that. The underlying issue, however, is the mass creation of what you call "stubs" by the conversion of bare statistics into a couple of sentences with no attempt to find significant coverage in sources more reliable than the databases. I have been randomly reviewing items in User:Lugnuts/Cricket and, taking those as a sample, I would think well over 50% would fall within the remit of the intention to implement a form of WP:CSD across Lugnuts' stubs.

I know I am permitted to accept consensus and close an AFD case I have opened but I need to check the process and make sure I do it right. I will come back soon and do that here. I am grateful to you all for working hard to save Jackie's article, but your work should have been done when the article was created. Laters.

Sistorian (talk) 08:15, 5 August 2022 (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.

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. It is not substantially contested here that the kind of sources required by WP:GNG have not been found after two weeks of searching. That being the case, the "keep" opinions are so weak that they have to be discounted: they use arguments now rejected by community consensus, i.e., that playing at a certain level of sports automatically establishes notability. A redirect closure per WP:ATD is also not possible because nobody has proposed a redirect target. Sandstein 08:26, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

John West (cricketer, born 1861)

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Sistorian (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The “database source” in this case contains a significant prose discussion of West’s career - likely his Wisden obituary. This is often the case with Middlesex players and demonstrates clearly that anyone nominating articles sourced to CricInfo needs to click the link to check. As a result there is suitable coverage already and that’s before we go and look in a range of other places such as Middlesex histories. The nomination is, unfortunately, not using a valid rationale in this case. Shame that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are also a number of passing mentions - for example, one on the Notts website - and some details appear in an paper in Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies, 15/1 by Keith Sandiford titled Amateurs and Professionals in Victorian County Cricket. Unfortunately I don't have access, but the snippet available in a google search suggests that there's a bit more detail there as well. He also appears mentioned several times in Cricket magazine and in an edition of Wisden, some of which is available online. This suggests that there will be more in other editions of Wisden. I imagine there's enough if someone has the time to suggest quite strongly that this passes WP:BASIC levels of sourcing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, the Cricinfo discussion is anything but significant because it is simply statistics dressed in prose clothing. The only non-statistical information it provides, other than what is already in the article, is West having been on the MCC ground staff, which is hardly significant. I presume you could add the statistical information to the information box, as seems to be the usual practice. If you intend to expand the article using statistics only, albeit in prose form, then I do not think that will comply with WP:NOT (in the section labelled WP:NOTSTATS) and the article will still lack significant coverage because "multiple sources are generally expected".

If there is more information in histories of the Middlesex club then by all means include it. As I understand things, though, the article must cite reliable sources and cannot be left in a "before we go and look" scenario. I am still new to this, I must point out, so please explain if I am misunderstanding the process in any way. Thank you.

Sistorian (talk) 21:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your nomination says The sole source is a statistical database only. That is patently not the case. Not only have you not looked to check if there are any other sources about West - which is strongly encouraged - you haven't checked the source which was in the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It patently is the case when the half a dozen lines of prose consist almost entirely of statistics with words between the numbers. The case is well put by User:Wjemather below. The coverage is brief to the point of insignificance.

With all six of the articles I have nominated, I carried out a Google search and found nothing except Wikipedia, its mirrors, sources already in the article like ESPN, and other statistical sites which do not seem reliable. You have said before that there may be content in Middlesex club histories but I do not have access to such books. As I understand the significant coverage requirement, there must be multiple reliable sources and they must be cited in the article. Please do not assume I have not checked Google or the ESPN article. I assure you I have.

Sistorian (talk) 19:28, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help but think if the first thing a new editor does is add six articles for deletion, they think something needs fixing with the project which they don't understand will take more than a batch-add of deletion discussions. There are better ways to handle content than adding everything that displeases you, as a new editor, to AfD. There are issues here which date back years, not just a month since you discovered the site and became au fait uncharacteristically quickly with deletion discussions and ArbCom cases. Bobo . 08:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. So playing in 86 first-class matches at the highest domestic level isn't considered notable? Right. Meets WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Isn't is also curious how someone with a month's history on here seems to be so involved with the AfD process... StickyWicket (talk) 06:54, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is notable if someone took significant note, if not then unfortunately no. That said, the British Newspaper Archive might have something on him. I took a brief look at this yesterday and mostly found information about another cricketer by the same name. I'll take another look at this tonight and see if I can't find something with a refined search. Alvaldi (talk) 10:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StickyWicket. Sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE just has to be applied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and procedural keep on the grounds that I have no idea what is in Wisden to add to the article, although those who have access presumably do. I believe issues like this need to be raised on WT:CRIC before adding to AfD on the spur of the moment. Bobo . 11:41, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate the honesty, but asserting that you "have no idea" if there is anything worthwhile in possible sources is not a convincing argument. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:17, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I had access to Wisden from somewhere, as I say, if you have access, feel free to add, otherwise really telling me that I'm wrong in giving others impetus to help out is counterproductve. My main point was that these issues are not taken to WT:CRIC first and need to be otherwise we get half a dozen delete votes from people who have nothing to contribute, and a fair number of contributions to the article in the interim... but that's happened many times and won't stop in a hurry. Bobo . 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As already indicated by BST, it would seem clear that the Cricinfo profile contains the entirety of the Wisden obit; since it does little more than summarise his statistics, it barely reaches the threshold of significant coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For someone who played that number of games, and umpired an official test it is highly likely that GNG passing sourcing exists. His name is particularly common, obviously with tuna, other cricketers and other umpires in other sports so searching is difficult, but with what we have and what we know I imagine there will be GNG passing sourcing out there. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Having looked into this some more and slept on it, I think there's a really interesting story here, but it's going to take some serious work to unpick all the strands and piece together all the pieces - at least two or three days worth of work and picking through newspapers and so on. And that's without access to old and expensive Wisdens. I will, hopefully, find time to do that work, but it won't happen for days if not a few weeks and it'll be quicker if nothing else comes up that is a higher priority. For that reason I'd rather keep the article for now at least. If the story doesn't pan out the way I think it will then it'll be obvious in six months time I guess. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Currently, the article fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5, as well as being a WP:NOTDATABASE violation. Normally, this would warrant deletion, but since Blue Square Thing believes they can improve the article, given sufficient time, I believe draftification would be a suitable compromise; either they can improve the article and it is returned to article space, or they can't and we don't need to waste our time with a second AfD in six months. BilledMammal (talk) 15:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There wouldn't be a second AfD. I'd redirect it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting by request. I'll let another admin close this AFD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:06, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I never found any SIGCOV on him in the British Newspaper Archive, perhabs I gave up to soon as there are ALOT of articles of people with the same name. This message board is the best I found. Of course, it can´t be used as a source but someone there did have better luck of finding some information on him so maybe someone here can use it to help narrow their searches. Alvaldi (talk) 08:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He's in Wisden plenty of times, the problem is getting access to really old (and expensive) Wisdens. Note that I would suggest very strongly that drafting this article is completely against a long-term consensus at AfD which has been established since at least 2018 to redirect if nothing can be found. I think in this case there is so much evidence of sources existing that there's an argument for keeping, at least for a period of time, but would much prefer a redirect to drafting. If it's drafted it won't get worked on (I can absolutely guarantee that I won't work on it) and will be deleted in six months. If it's redirected it may get worked on, we retain the attribution and source history and we retain the links to and from lists etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing Redirecting it is also fine by me. Alvaldi (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - there hasn't been a single delete !vote on this article and the nomination was by a sock-puppet. Was deletion review even mentioned at the time? Deletion review only gave us one !vote to relist. Was re-listing really necessary? As we've said, there's a lot ot unpick that we won't get done overnight. Bobo . 08:12, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? How about you source this instead of obsessing over process. You do have a source don’t you? Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:48, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ironically I probably care less for process than almost anyone else. "Process" gets in our way of achieving our goal. Unfortunately, as a project, we have reached an impasse as regards what that goal is. Some of us think the project should be horizontal, some of us think the project should be vertical, and in many cases, ne'er the twain... Bobo . 19:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don’t make needless procedural objections if you don’t consider process important unless you want to be accused of process wonkery. There is no impasse, there was a massive fuck off RFC that set a standard. Folks just arguing contrary are being disruptive and clearly throwing sand into the gears to slow down the inevitable cleanup. There was an arbitration request that reinforced the risks of that behaviour. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:38, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we were working to the same goal, no "process" would be needed. And an "inevitable" clean-up which will not happen without the mass-deletion of dozens of articles of players with scores of appearances, contrary to the goals of the project. A tragic indication of what we have become. Bobo . 19:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You make my point perfectly. Firstly you put the aims of your wikiproject ahead of the expressed desire of the community and a settled community consensus and then you have the effrontery to assume that I am working to different goals then you. Next you will be applying some silly label as a way of making it ok to ignore an opinion reflecting community consensus. Classy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete none of the keep votes are based on policy established at an extremely well attended RFC that requires sports bios to have at least a single decent reliable source. As Noted cricinfo is a sports database (a bloody brilliant one) but turning statistics into propose is not an RS. The closing admin should note that there is an entrenched WP:Cricket contingent voting here who are clearly opposed to the will of the community but have singularly failed to provide the required source. wiki projects do not have the right to stick two fingers up to the community and force through non policy based outcomes by making frankly risable non policy based arguments. If the sourcing is not provided then the policy based outcome is delete although personally I think its high time lists of cricketers by team and period were created for these articles so we can simoly redirect them until the sources are found. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:46, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. Per the arguments from BST, BM, Alvaldi, and Spartaz. I agree that SIG sourcing needs to be shown to exist, but that redirection is viable until then. JoelleJay (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The guidelines are quite clear that a source that fails NSPORT but passes GNG can and should be kept. Some keep !voters are asserting the subject passes GNG (not NSPORT) which would be grounds for keeping regardless of the RFC, but I'd like to see some actual evidence of that if I'm going to !vote to keep. To say that "Keep because GNG" is "not based in policy" is simply false, but on the other hand, I'd like to see some evidence that he actually passes it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We know, because there are the odd snippet views, that there are mentions in Wisden. Beyond that, we know that he was on the MCC's staff for a long period - until way after he finished playing which is odd - and was given two benefit seasons by Middlesex, the first player to be given a second; both of those were after he'd finished playing as well. We know that players like this were profiled in Lillywhite's guides - for example, the other John West is profiled here. The problem is that we can't access those sources. And he umpired a Test.

There's something going on here and I'm 99% certain that a) sources exists and b) there's a story that's worth looking into. But it's going to take time and effort. I'm hopeful, per the discussion going on about access to sources at the cricket project, that we might have a way in to some of those sources - thanks to Spartaz's connections.

Can I show sources exist right now? No, I can't - beyond snippet views and the like. But this John West played 86 matches compared to the other John West's 52. He had two benefit seasons compared to one match. There's something there you know - the message board post that Alvadi found suggests as much. But there's no online sourcing.

So, if it has to be redirected, fine. I'll see what I can find and bring it back as a test case at some point if I'm able to. If people are happy to give it six months in main space, then that's fine as well - if I've found nothing after that I'll redirect it myself. If you really must delete it then go ahead, delete it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2022 (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.

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. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 08:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Meston

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and England. Sistorian (talk) 19:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Imagine my surprise when, after having discovered prose in another nomination made alongside this one, when I found prose in the “database source” used as a source here. It’s not exactly common and I was genuinely surprised to find two AfD in a row where, as a result of that prose, the nomination is invalid. In this case it’s an obituary from The Cricketer. I suspect a Wisden obituary and other prose sources will also exist. I’ll, obviously, see what I can find at some point but will struggle to do so given the number of cricket AfD which have been nominated in the last 36 hours. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Wisden obit is just a shallow blurb. JoelleJay (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the ESPN paragraph is another example of statistics put into words, as is the case with the John West article. It adds nothing of value to the brief information already in the article, except perhaps that Meston was an amateur player. I cannot say if that is important or not.

Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Curious to that this user claims to have one month's experience on here, having created zero articles, then all of a sudden magically appears nominating articles like a pro at AfD. I doubt they are a new user, through their deletion nom of a female international cricketer is pretty ironic considering their userpage blurb. StickyWicket (talk) 07:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:AssociateAffiliate. In the words of Michelle Madow: "Everyone has to start somewhere. If you let people bring you down now, you'll never know how high you could climb. And you owe it to yourself to try".

I am not aware of any requirement to create articles before venturing into AFD. I have followed the WP:AFDHOWTO and Twinkle instructions very carefully. These are clear and well written so, as (I think) I am fairly bright, I have been able to place my first few entries. I have not, however, had the confidence to try a WP:MULTIAFD yet, which would perhaps have been the ideal way to present the Meston/Greene/West cases. I will make sure I can manage individual entries first and then try a multiple one someday.

As for nominating two female cricketers, their articles lack significant coverage and I am not a feminist, let alone a militant feminist, so I fail to see any irony. You refer to my "userpage blurb" and, yes, I am a woman and a lesbian and an environmentalist and many other things. If you have any problems with those, then I am sorry but they are me and I doubt if I will ever change. Do please reconsider your decision to retire, however, because something like this can hardly be worth getting steamed up about.

Sistorian (talk) 12:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a crack at looking for sources about him. Looking for Sam Meston and Samuel Meston on the British Newspaper Archive mostly just turned up sources on the footballer of the same name. On Newspapers.com, these obituaries are the best I found[2][3]. The rest seemed to be mostly match reports though I might have missed something. Alvaldi (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC and by extension WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 07:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting NCRIC certainly does not mean that a subject meets GNG by extension. –dlthewave ☎ 12:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StickyWicket. Sometimes WP:COMMONSENSE just has to be applied. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:11, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources which have been added are either short blurbs or brief mentions of Meston in the context of a match recap and do not demonstrate significant coverage sufficient to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources above, including the Wisden obit I found, are essentially proseified stats or mentions in routine match recaps. Not SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Personally feel there's just enough about enough here, with what then likely exists offline for a GNG pass here given his career was in a time of offline media. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and keep - Deleting County Championship players is an odd course of action. The Cricket Wikiproject is more than able and willing to find sources if you feel they are necessary. To send to AfD before finding out whether more information can be found saves people from leaving premature delete !votes. I'm always impressed by what is available and can be accessed on newspaper archives. Bobo . 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the sources added are all significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and so the subject passes WP:GNG. St Anselm (talk) 16:36, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the nominator has been blocked as a sock puppet. St Anselm (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2022 (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.

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 List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Robin Greene

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

Lack of significant coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:SIGCOV. The sole source is a statistical database only. Sistorian (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. Sistorian (talk) 19:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players Only played two fixtures, and I'm not seeing much to suggest a GNG pass in albeit a very simple search. His name is reasonably common though and there could potentially be coverage in Gloucestershire related annuals. For now I'm at redirect as a suitable WP:ATD but if anything is fine I'll happily reconsider. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Gloucestershire County Cricket Club players per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:59, 8 August 2022 (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.

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amitabh Vijayvargiya

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

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles, and no objective evidence of their existence has been provided as required by WP:NRV. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. The only non-database source is routine coverage of a single event and does not provide a level of depth that could be used to meet SIGCOV or build out a viable article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitabh Vijayvargiya. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete It's my belief that GNG passing sourcing exists on the subject, likely in offline or non-English language sourcing, however none has been forthcoming since the last AfD, hence my weak delete. I would suggest a redirect here, but there's no suitable one given he's played for multiple sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Bhaskar source is a press release with comments from the subject picked up by numerous other outlets. All other sources I found for "अमिताभ विजयवर्गीय" in the first three pages of Google results were in the context of IDCA/BCCI administrative announcements, comments and announcements he made in his capacity as Secretary of IDCA or as a BCCI committee head, or mentions in articles discussing IDCA president Kailash Vijayvargiya, rather than discussion of him. JoelleJay (talk) 23:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I see no evidence that WP:GNG/WP:NBASIC is met based off of the sources presented here or in the article. I have conducted a thorough search for sources that cover this person and I have been unable to find evidence of the individual passing WP:SIGCOV. There is a community consensus that participation-based criteria within NSPORT are not sufficient to establish that an individual is notable and that sports biographies must include examples of SIGCOV. As such, in light of WP:CONLEVEL, I see no reason that the article should be kept. Arguments that participation-based thresholds are acceptable for notability should be WP:DISCARDed per WP:CONLEVEL. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 19:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if enough refs do exist, this will be recreated separately from a database listing. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:53, 8 August 2022 (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.

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Saxena

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

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. The single non-database source is a mere passing mention and does not meet the SIGCOV requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous discussion no one has been able to find suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misrepresentation of NCRIC from an editor who is now banned for their AfD conduct. That section actually says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof" (emphasis mine). –dlthewave ☎

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'd like to think that GNG passing sourcing does exist on the subject, likely in offline or non-English language media, but none has been forthcoming since the last AfD around a year ago, hence my weak delete. I would suggest a redirect, but given he played for a number of sides there isn't a suitable one here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 1 August 2022 (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.

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 List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. if more sources are found to show SIGCOV, may qualify for his own article. Based on current consensus will redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers (non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Sahni

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

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. Although one source was provided at the previous AfD, it does not meet SIGCOV for Sahni as it is an interview with him about a game, not independent coverage of the man himself. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Sahni. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep A GNG passing source was found in the previous AfD, and I believe it likely that there is more GNG passing coverage in offline and non-English language media, although none has been forthcoming since the previous AfD. At worst there's a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers as suitable redirect per WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. The one source that has more than a passing mention of him only has ~5 sentences actually on him, most of them in the context of his son:
Mukesh Sahni, father of Parth Sahni of Ujjain, included in state Ranji team was welcomed.
His father Mukesh Sahni has played Ranji for Madhya Pradesh.
Mukesh Sahni, resident of Dabripeetha was felicitated by members of Nagar Brahmin Samaj on the Kshipra coast.
Mukesh Sahni has been an excellent cricketer and he has played 12 Ranji matches for Madhya Pradesh. His son Parth took two wickets for MP while debuting in the final and after 88 years made a significant contribution in defeating a strong side like Mumbai.
There is a distinction between "trivial", "non-trivial", and "significant" coverage, with this falling squarely in the middle category. JoelleJay (talk) 08:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there? I've never heard that before, and it doesn't seem to fit with WP:SIGCOV: " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." St Anselm (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC makes such a distinction. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BASIC you mean? As far as I can tell from reading it several times no distinction is made between trivial, non-trivial and significant coverage. A distinction is made between trivial and non-trivial, because under BASIC non-trivial sources may contribute to passing notability if several are combined. But given that it refers to a 200 page book as being non-trivial I don't think it makes a distinction between non-trivial and significant coverage really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability This suggests there may be non-trivial sources that are nevertheless not substantial enough to provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looks like a choice between Keep and Redirect right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This won't necessarily help much, as I'm in the same camp as RF22 again here: this is either a weakish keep, based on the entirely reasonable assumption that there will be way more offline sources available, many of them not written in English, or I would be relaxed about a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers with a note being added to the entry there. From the pov of attempting to deal with systematic bias I'd probably tend slightly more towards keep than redirect I suppose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What about the requirement for a source of SIGCOV? I think the 5-sentence blurb above in the context of his son would really be stretching it. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with the assumption BASIC would, if we could access the offline sources that almost certainly exist, allow us to pull sources together to have enough to demonstrate notability. I'm also, as I say, perfectly happy with a redirect, but a general feeling that there seem to be, for some reason, an awful lot of Indian subcontinent AfDs regarding cricketers makes me worry about the trend towards increasing whiteness in our coverage, so I'd be happy with a bold keep as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a big "could"; the assumption that SIGCCOV sources exist for players who participated at a certain level has been rejected by the community. Perhaps draftification would be a good alternative to give folks an opportunity to build an article that demonstrates notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit skeptical of the "rejected by the community" language. In particular, with FC cricketers, the long-recognised concern was with those who had played a handful of matches - I'm not sure the assumption that SIGCCOV sources exist for players who have played 44 matches has been rejected by the community. St Anselm (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting would be a terrible idea - we all know that this is just delete the page in six months time. Redirection, as indicated by several editors, would be much more in line with consensus on cricket articles going back to at least 2018, preserves the page history and attribution and is more efficient. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So how about the cricket project maintain a list of draftified pages to work on, and someone can make a single edit every six months to prevent G13. If no one has any interest in actually bringing the subject up to the bare minimum standards in the near future, I don't see why it should remain in mainspace on the (rejected) presumption that SIGCOV exists. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added the two ESPN articles - not sure why they weren't in before. And I think they constitute significant coverage - they are both analyses of how he was coaching. St Anselm (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How odd that they weren't added. They would help me trend towards a keep per my comment above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing, they don't come up as "news". I suspect we all rely far too much on Google in our searches. St Anselm (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those has independent SIGCOV of Sahni, since the only content "on" him is just his own quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. Notability just isn't there, even with the trivial mentions in the ESPN sources provided. As usual WP:NEXIST is mentioned as a keep rationale, and while yes, sources do not need to be present in the article, they do need to be shown as existing. We can't just handwave away the lack of sources, otherwise every single article at AfD would be kept via WP:NEXIST; if we're going to cite WP:NEXIST, we have to show that they actually exist in order for that to be a compelling argument. WP:NSPORT mentioned above only discusses the likelihood of sources existing, it says nothing about being notable through playing at certain levels and makes it clear that significant coverage is still needed, which this article does not have. - Aoidh (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:45, 15 August 2022 (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.

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 09:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeeva Rao

AfDs for this article:

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

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 15:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeeva Rao. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:26, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous discussion no one has been able to find suitable sources, which suggests there are no such sources. Redirection is not suitable due to the existence of an elected official called B. Sanjeeva Rao. BilledMammal (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And the sports specific criteria includes WP:SPORTSCRIT. In addition, NCRIC doesn't presume notability, it suggests significant coverage is likely to exist if it and WP:SPORTSCRIT is met. BilledMammal (talk) 18:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete It's my opinion that GNG passing sources likely exists on the subject, in either offline or non-English language media, but in the year since the last AfD none has been forthcoming, therefore I'm at weak delete as there's no suitable redirect here as he played for a number of different sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it seems nobody is really looking hard for sources here. There's an article here[4] that describes a match and comments of his career that, if it isn't sigcov, it comes close. There are a number of articles about his being an official[5] and I found a couple of database articles that referenced him as a club or regional official, he's also mentioned in the book Cricket wallah : with England in India, 1981-2 in a piece which has been excerpted in The Picador book of cricket and Bat, ball & boundary : a cricketer's companion. These are admittedly passing mentions, but it seems to me useful that sportsmen who get mentioned in anthologies of sportswriting and have significant careers be described in encyclopedia articles. There's some more coverage here[6] and he gets a mention in this book of cricket records[7]. With him showing up in these kinds of sources, I'm confident that if we actually had access to a good database of Indian newspapers for the relevant period of his playing career, he'd show up there too.--Jahaza (talk) 09:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No I think those were likely seen but overlooked, because they are the very definition of trivial coverage and don't contribute to notability per WP:GNG. If that's the best we can find, it kind of supports the fact that there's nothing there in terms of coverage. While it's possible sources exist, per WP:NCRICKET we should not assume sources exist at this level. - Aoidh (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial, passing mentions and appearances in lists do not contribute to GNG and certainly do not indicate further sources might exist. Primary play-by-play recaps of matches are routine in cricket and do not count towards GNG either. The article does not have a single SIGCOV source, and so fails SPORTCRIT and should be deleted. JoelleJay (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2022 (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.

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. Guerillero ^{Parlez Moi} 10:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sachin Dholpure

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NSPORT and GNG. The single non-database source is a narrative of a single game which doesn't discuss the subject in sufficient depth to meet SIGCOV. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 13:01, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sachin Dholpure. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:28, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can disagree on whether or not NEXIST overrides the SPORTBASIC requirement, but I think it's clear that both guidelines require the proven existence of sources. Can you name one SIGCOV source? –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous one no one has been able to find suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep While NCRIC and NSPORTS have been updated since the previous AfD, there was a GNG passing source provided at the time of the previous AfD. It is likely that some coverage may well exist in offline non-English language media, although none has been found in the last year. I'm at weak keep because of this, but at worst there's a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers as a valid WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I did see the source but it's just a brief and routine mention in an article about a Cricket match, not significant coverage of Dholpure himself. –dlthewave ☎ 03:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NCRICKET, it's actually not likely that there's coverage, and a reference with a trivial mention does not meet WP:GNG in any way (even ignoring the fact that articles require multiple reliable sources with significant coverage). WP:GNG isn't even approaching the level of being met here. - Aoidh (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The single non-stats source on him is strictly a routine, primary match recap, not SIGCOV. It describes how he and other players performed at one non-notable match, in a non-notable tournament, the exact same way every other such match is summarized. JoelleJay (talk) 08:00, 2 August 2022 (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.

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. There is consensus to delete: guidelines are now clear that sportspeople need sources rather than only match participation for an article. One "keep" does not address this and the other is by a now-banned editor, which I discount.

There's no consensus for a redirect (which would seem like a sensible ATD to me). Whether to create a redirect after deletion is therefore up to editors. Sandstein 12:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar Deshpande

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is sourced only to a single database, and no significant coverage has been found even after going through AfD a year ago. Fails SPORTBASIC which requires at least one SIGCOV source to be cited in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Deshpande. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous discussion no one has been able to find suitable sources, which suggests there are no such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete While I believe that it is likely that sourcing that passes GNG probably exists on this player, none has been forthcoming in the year since the previous AfD, with the change in guidelines both the NCRIC and NSPORTS also. I'd suggest redirect, but there's not really a suitable one here given he played for a number of teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Aoidh. No SIGCOV sources (or even just one source) have been found in the last year, and there is nothing to suggest they exist. JoelleJay (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. Per community consensus, a GNG-passing source must exist for sportspersons to be considered notable. I see no evidence that this is met and per WP:CONLEVEL consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Since the individual fails WP:GNG, there is no policy-based reason for keeping the article. The individual's name appears on the list that is my proposed redirect target (and the list's selection criteria would include him) and ESPN CricInfo is reliable enough to establish his existence IMO, so I see a redirect as proper here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if sources exist, the article will be recreated separately from a database listing. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:56, 8 August 2022 (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.

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 List of Uttarakhand cricketers. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ankit Manori

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 19:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CRIN. St Anselm (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a valid argument here. CRIN is a wikiproject essay which does not offer any presumption of notability. The relevant SNG is NCRIC, and since the subject fails this, sources need to be found to show that GNG is met. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand how AfD works. Anyone is allowed to appeal to a notability essay. That's always been the case. See also: WP:ONLYESSAY. St Anselm (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

However, the criteria you are (presumably) relying on here were rejected by the community in a well attended RFC (WP:NSPORTS2022), hence their removal from the actual guideline just a few months ago. You are simply highlighting that the cricket project essay has yet to be updated in line with community consensus. Also, please refer to WP:ATA with regards to making vague wave/just notable !votes. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to List of Uttarakhand cricketers I'm not seeing enough for a GNG pass here, despite the confusion over the spelling of his name, with CA suggesting Ankit Manor and Cricinfo suggesting Ankit Manori, however with both and previous on Indian cricketers who've played a few games, not really seeing enough. I would suggest redirect per WP:ATD, but the list page would need to be created, but perhaps that can be done before the AfD process is complete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list is quite short in this case (51 players per CA). Usually I'd do it, but I'll be away from the machine I can easily access CA on for a week, so it couldn't happen before 8 August at the earliest. This is, though, the best alternative in this case and the list could be created as an incomplete list - this has happened before and can work as a placeholder until someone with CA access can get to the list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per RugbyFan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:11, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. This seems the most logical step. His career to date hasn't set the world on fire and I doubt there will be in depth coverage in Hindi sources. StickyWicket (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of a valid redirect target; otherwise redirect. Clearly fails GNG due to lack of significant coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The list is done now. It saved me listening to two family members arguing again... Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And I should say that this is obviously going to be a non-destructive redirect. That way if we ever get a pile of sources on him the article is much easier to write. I'd prefer that a short note was added to the list when the article is redirected - I'm happy to do it if someone pings me. Ta. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:09, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect As per Rugbyfan22. MrsSnoozyTurtle 02:00, 6 August 2022 (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.

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. Tone 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shariz Ahmad

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Netherlands. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per [8], [9] and [10], along with the fact he's currently playing international cricket for the Netherlands. At worst, restore the article's redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Only the first of those three sources contributes anything towards GNG (and even then it's minimal); the second is a club announcement (so not independent), and the third is a match report with nothing more than passing mentions (so not significant coverage). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He did play ODI against West Indies cricket team and also appeared in 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Global Qualifier B. By the looks of it, he might be selected for 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup in future. Also agree with Lugnuts above. Human (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Since the WP:NSPORTS2022 RFC, merely playing is no longer a criterion for having a standalone article; nor is predicting what he might do in future. Sources are needed to show that the subject meets WP:GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wjemather: I was expecting this response from you. Anyways a redirect should be a logical alternative as I am confident the player will get an article in future. Human (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sorts of coverage that Lugnuts has found above, as well as the mention at the article linked from his CricInfo profile and so on, I think keeping is probably justified in this case. WP:BASIC provides for the sorts of coverage from those sorts of sources to be applied to articles about people - the coverage is clearly beyond simple trivial match reports in this case. I wonder if there are any other transliterations of his name by the way? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts and Human. St Anselm (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's GNG coverage on this one as Lugnuts has found. There's a suitable redirect again anyway if needs be, but I think there's going to be enough here anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Netherlands ODI cricketers. Fails NSPORT (including SPORTCRIT and NCRIC), and there seems to be entirely insufficient to pass WP:GNG and build a policy-compliant article, per WP:WHYN. We need to demonstrate coverage exists now, and only one of the sources found contains significant coverage from an independent source, but it is minimal; the other sources are either primary, not independent, or coverage is trivial, which per BASIC "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. International cricketers really ought to be off limits for AfD's for full member nations and teams outside of those who play in the Cricket World Cup Super League. StickyWicket (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, notability guidelines that supported this view were rejected by the community and removed from NSPORT earlier this year. Better sources are required than those that have been presented so far. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable enough. DIVINE (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: lots of coverage now as he entrenches himself into the Dutch team.[11] St Anselm (talk) 22:49, 4 August 2022 (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.

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 List of United States ODI cricketers. I have to discount the "keep" opinions because they mostly do not address what community consensus has established every biography needs: substantial coverage in reliable sources. And those that do cite sources do not (or unconvincingly) address the concerns raised about these sources that they are not substantial coverage. I'm also discounting the input by Lugnuts because they have since been banned. Sandstein 19:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saiteja Mukkamalla

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and United States of America. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He has played at least one senior ODI, the highest form of one-day cricket, which satisfies WP:CRIC Bs1jac (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCRIC (WP:CRIC is the wikiproject) states that significant coverage is likely to exist for international cricketers in Test playing nations. That is not the case here, so WP:GNG must be met, and none of the current sources in the article contribute to demonstrating that. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a lot of mentions in press reports. Once they start to call him things like "teenage prodigy" it makes me wonder if there might be enough here to suggest that keeping the article wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. There's evidence through those that he is also referred to Sai Mukkamalla, Sai Teja Mukkamalla and Sai Reddy Mukkamalla. We've had this issue with transliterations several times recently which is all a bit unfortunate. In particular, using Sai Teja adds a number of other mentions to those we already get. Hmmm... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could share 3-4 of the SIGCOV sources you've found, you'd have a good argument for keeping the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep?. As BST said there should be enough SIGCOV if the player actually played ODI unlike T20Is as not ICC member gets to play them. However I've noticed this discrepancy between what's written in WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Help in improving articles are expected instead of just blatantly deleting everything. Human (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers There's clearly coverage on this player, he gets absolute heaps of mentions in a simple google search, which would normally suggest that there is likely something out there that would pass him for GNG, however in this albeit simple search I've not really found anything other than these passing mentions (although absolutely loads of them). I'd like to think with these amounts of mentions there is enough for a GNG pass, hence me suggesting keep, although I wouldn't mind a redirect here per WP:ATD until a bit more turns up, which I believe it will. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BST. Here's one source for starters. Worst case then redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. None of the sources found contain significant coverage, only passing mentions in routine sports reporting. This is entirely insufficient to pass WP:GNG and build a policy-compliant article, per WP:WHYN. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a little bit more than just passing mentions, but we'd need to build a more significant set of those to meet WP:BASIC. I doubt I'll be able to find time over the next week to do the sorts of work that would be necessary to do this, so there's nothing wrong with the non-destructive remedy of using a redirect for now. I suspect there's more to come on the chap, fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing that has been presented meets the requirements of GNG/BASIC/SPORTCRIT; specifically, primary sources "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject", and (other than the usual databases) routine passing mentions in primary sports reporting is pretty much all that has been shown to exist. In these cases, lists serve our readers better than producing unbalanced stub articles synthesised from such sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per BST and Lugnuts. Another poorly thought out AfD on an international cricketer. StickyWicket (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per accurate reasoning by Keep voters. —Natalie RicciNatalie 09:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. The keep arguments allude to sources but other than one borderline source above, nothing has been found. "There should be sources" is not and has never been an argument for notability and WP:NCRIC only says "Significant coverage is likely to exist" it does not say that playing at a certain level creates notability. NCRIC only says there may be sources at a certain level; it is neither a guarantee that sources will exist, nor does playing at any given level create even an assumption of notability. Sources are still required and notability must be demonstrated; we can't allude to hypothetical sources as a reason to keep an article, and per WP:GOOGLEHITS having "absolute heaps of mentions" on Google doesn't mean anything as it's the quality and significance of coverage that matters. - Aoidh (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per BST, Lugnuts, and StickyWicket. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 16:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:PERX. BST said BASIC has not (yet) been met and did not give an argument for keeping the article, so what are you basing your keep argument on, exactly? - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
BST said that "we'd need to build a more significant set of those [passing mentions] to meet WP:BASIC". As said before, there are an abundant amount of passing mentions in which they give a mention or some regard on this person. Some "significant" mentions I have found so far include this and this from Cricbuzz, this and this from Emerging Cricket, and this and this from Stabroek News and Bernews. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 18:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you say As I said before what are you referring to? Your first comment literally only said "Per BST, Lugnuts, and StickyWicket", none of whom make any argument for keeping the article in line with any Wikipedia policy or guideline. As for your sources, every single one of those is a trivial mention, and do not contribute to WP:BASIC in any way, and fall far short of WP:GNG. If those are the most "significant" sources that can be found, that's just evidence that there should not be an article of this subject on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I said “as said before”, in reference to BST and Rugby. And Lugnuts and StickyWicket were just adding on to what BST had said. Lugnuts gave a decent secondary source (an example of a “significant” passing mention, as part of WP:BASIC) and StickyWicket just agreed with both BST and Lugnuts. And, in remarks to my “trivial” mentions, there are far more mentions lurking on the Internet and these sources were just some among others which provides more than just a regard in his performance in matches. --WellThisIs TheReaper ^Grim 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter how many trivial mentions there are out there, they don't contribute to notability and at that point you're just appealing to WP:GHITS. None of those sources describe the subject in any detail beyond passing mentions other than the one single one Lugnuts provided, and even that's not significant coverage. If you had a great number of those kinds of sources that would be an argument for WP:BASIC, but these trivial mentions don't cut it. I would say that this for example could not be more trivial, but this somehow manages. These are as trivial as it is possible to get while still somehow managing to have his name in the source. I think you would be hard pressed to find a source that says less about him while still including his name...and this is the best we can do for sources? This is what you linked as examples of why the article should be kept? All that does is highlight that even the people arguing to keep the article can't find coverage of the article's subject and can't justify it being on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think, as I said above, that there's better than the examples there. I might just get a chance to see what I can identify over the next 48 hours. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:54, 6 August 2022 (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.

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 List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers. Tone 09:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Feroza

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that her name also appears to be transliterated as Gul Feroza and there may be other alternatives as well. There are at least two in-depth TV style interviews with her on YouTube from different media sources (one 15 mins long). Neither are in English. Has anyone checked non-English sources at all? Given the number of mentions in English I think I'd want to do that before I could be confident that there aren't sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: I've had a look to see if there are any Urdu sources, there only seems to be one saying she got a central contract, and this which I assume is not enough. Suprising seeing as there were two interviews. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers While there seems to be a bit of confusion over the correct spelling of her name, I'm not sure there's going to be enough coverage currently for her. However, again, there is a suitable redirect per WP:ATD, and again could have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BST (...least two in-depth TV style interviews...). Also meets the updated WP:NSPORT notability guideline: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going down to the cricket notability states "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation" and she has, having played for Pakistan. She's also in the squad for the Commonwealth Games that is happening right now too, suggesting coverage for her exists, albeit not in English. At worst, redirect per RugbyFan Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers - The sources just aren't there. Also to counterpoint what Lugnuts said above, he's leaving out a very important aspect of the cricket specific listing at WP:NSPORT. It does not say "cricket notability" or that notability is met if they play at an international level. What is says is: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they...Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation." Additionally it says "cricketers who have played...in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So with higher international players we can assume there's coverage, with lower international players we can't assume there's coverage. It says nothing about making one notable, it literally only is a guidance on the likelihood of coverage and is not a judgement on notability in any way. Whether this is a higher or lower level of international play I honestly do not know (I'm assuming it's higher) but the end result is the same, reliable sources still need to exist. Whether we should assume coverage or not, we still have to actually provide the coverage to meet WP:GNG, and this article's subject does not. - Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2022 (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.

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 List of Nepal ODI cricketers. This discussion has established quite clearly that of the sources found thus far, only one secondary source is both reliable and substantive. My reading of NSPORTS and NCRIC is that for a player, even an international player, of a non-test-playing nation, a single source is not sufficient for notability, and so the argument to keep isn't supported by the provided evidence. I do not see an argument supporting outright deletion, and so salting is moot; however, we could consider fully protecting the redirect if it becomes necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Mahato

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Nepal. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some mentions, but I'm not sure they really combine to provide a more in-depth detailing of the subject. Getting there, but I'm not sure they're there yet. In which case we'd be better off reinstating the redirect for now and seeing what else can be found - the basis for a better article is here and it would be annoying at best to have to do the work again when it's already been done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, actually WP:GNG requires "multiple" sigcov, so at least two, and GNG trumps everything. This is the 3rd time it's been put into main space, we are on the verge of needing it WP:SALTed. The last AFD made it pretty clear it should have gone to review before recreating, then draftifying, then pushing back into mainspace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown:, this is one of several articles that were created as a redirect by one editor and expanded to a stub shortly thereafter. I wonder if this has the effect (intentional or not) of skirting our review processes, since a redirect would receive less scrutiny than a stub. –dlthewave ☎ 19:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it's hard to always know what someone's motivations are. Salting would make it moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers or weak keep~~ Keep. There seems to be a contradiction between WP:CRIN and WP:NCRIC, with the former saying something and the later summarising something different. Then the added WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG makes it complicated. Completely deleting this doesn't right. Human (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIN is an essay, which doesn't mean it has no value, it's just not vetted as rigorous as policy and can't be used as a policy based rationale. WP:GNG is the authority for all other sub policy/essay/etc, ie: "multiple reliable sources with significant coverage". That said, I don't have an issue with a delete and redirect, but I would definitely want it full protected (salted) if it went that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note-- The user above is the person who copy pasted this in the first place. This circumvented the AfC process Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: The user above? Does me and DIVINE look like the same person? I removed the redirect and filled the article using my own words. This has nothing to do with any copy paste from the draft you mentioned below. Human (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are common sources which can be easily found on google, hence you've not copied or pasted anything here. DIVINE (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete. This is a copy-paste from Draft:Kishore Mahato. It had been created and then moved to draft space originally as not ready for main space.Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comparing the draft and article at the time of its creation by Simplehuman, I don't think this one is a copy-paste job. –dlthewave ☎ 18:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~That is not a copy paste from a draft, as I raised that question on the User:Primefac talk page before and he has already clarified it. DIVINE (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~+What Dennis Brown has said. much better reasoning than I can express. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

struck per Blue square thing and others-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers There's not enough here for a GNG pass, but there is a clear redirect per WP:ATD. Probably should have been BOLDy redirected in the first place, but there does seem to be a bit of confusion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. He has taken a five wicket haul, which I would imagine in cricket mad Nepal received widespread coverage. With regard to NCRIC, it should be all ODI cricketers are notable given it is a very exclusive level of the sport – considering only 28 teams out of the 106 members of the ICC have ever played at that level. It is the highest international level of the game and considerably above 'international' matches with List A status, or 'international' one-day matches with no status. StickyWicket (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP. He is a national cricket player of Nepal and have already represented a number of matches in international arena. There are plenty of local sources available. I have added few. Please check. The confusing content of the article has also been reworded. I suggest a person competent in cricket vocabulary do a through copy edit. There is no need to keep it in Draft either. It is suitable to be published. Best!nirmal (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had already added the notable reliable sources before too, as they only regard English sources as WP: RS, and should try to translate Nepalese sources too. Kishore is notable enough to be here being a national ODI and T20 Player. DIVINE (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References do not have to be in English WP:GNG "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." But they do need to "Significant coverage" not minor mentions. Jeepday (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. User:Nirmaljoshi has added sources to the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable National cricket player and support Nirmal's comment above. DIVINE (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the notability appears to be there, being an international competitor. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers. Only one of the sources (online khabar) rises to the level of significant coverage (more content could be added from this) but the rest are just passing mentions in primary sources (match reports, squad announcements, etc.) and the usual database. This is not enough to demonstrate notability per GNG or BASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that several new sources were added to the article on 31 July 2022‎ (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY sources added by Nirmaljoshi. BBSTOP (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom): I considered changing to Keep after others mentioned the additional sources which were added, but only one of them actually contributes to significant coverage; the rest are stats tables, match reports and the like. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in this assessment:

[12] - Good in-depth bio

[13] - Stats table

[14] - Match report, brief mention

[15] - Stats table

[16] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list

[17] - Stats table

[18] - Team lineup announcement, brief mention

[19] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list

[20] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list. –dlthewave ☎ 05:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why one in-depth biography plus at least one other mention isn't enough to keep the article? Especially given that this biography contributes to broadening the scope of Wikipedia to include more diverse articles? If the assessment is that the first source is an in-depth bio then I would certainly support keeping rather than redirecting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary coverage (which includes match reports, team announcements, etc.) and wide ranging databases do not contribute to establishing notability. One of the reasons we usually require multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage is to comply with V and NPOV. In general, BLPs should not be based on a single source. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the criteria for inclusion (WP:GNG) requires multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. The most minimalistic view of that policy is two reliable articles of significant coverage, which this fails. Passing mentions don't count towards meeting notability requirements, although they can be used to source some facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the maximalist view. The minimalist view is that for certain sportspeople one source with significant coverage in the article + routine, statistical coverage can be a proxy for GNG. St Anselm (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTCRIT #5 only makes sense if one such source in the article is sometimes sufficient. St Anselm (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTCRIT was amended in this regard largely to ~~prevent~~ discourage creation of low quality stubs purely by means of scraping a database (see WP:NSPORTS2022, proposal 5; diff of change); it is in no way a bypass of GNG/BASIC and the requirement for multiple sources with significant coverage. The idea of one source with significant coverage being sufficient only has consensus for sources that are of such high quality and depth that it is utterly inconceivable that no other significant coverage exists; that is plainly not the case here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading what you are linking? The very first line of SPORTCRIT says A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published[3] non-trivial[4] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[5] and independent of the subject. First, they are presumed, it isn't automatic just likely IF, and only IF they have been the subject of significant coverage by multiple publishers, ie: non-trivial secondary sources. In short, what GNG says, and what this fails to pass. Multiple, independent, sigcov, RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read that. And I don't think WP:NSPORT is consistent. Or even why it even exists, if it just falls back to GNG. So we just have to make the best sense of it we can. St Anselm (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They all get their authority from GNG. Many of the sub-criteria are essays, or projects, some are policy, but at the end of the day "2+ independent RS w/sigcov" is the gold standard. that is what I meant by minimalist. GNG says "multiple", and 2 is the smallest number that qualifies as "multiple". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is either a keep, based on a decent source and a bunch of passing references coming pretty darned close to BASIC levels of coverage, or it's a redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers with a note added to his entry. From the POV of dealing with systematic bias there's some merit in being slightly more generous on the keep side here: chances are that more source exist in Nepal and that given his age, more are likely to be written. I'd be happy enough to keep on the basis that that's likely, but I've no doubt that that will enrage other people so would have no problem with a redirect. What this is not under any circumstances is a delete - there is a long standing consensus that cricket articles such as this are redirected to a suitable list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the team for another ODI and T20I. Anyone here are feel free to add this reliable sources [21][22] & Nepalese cricket team in Kenya in 2022. DIVINE (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of squad/team announcements and match reports. Such sources are primary, almost always not significant coverage and do not contribute to demonstrating notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but without WP:CRYSTALBALLING I think we can presume that the coverage will only grow as he plays more matches. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariz Ahmad for a similarly new player. I actually created the article on Pat Cummins while he still technically failed the notability guidelines. Not saying Mahato will become a Test cricket captain, but we are allowed to be sensible about this. St Anselm (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2022 (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.

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 Draftify. General agreement that the article needs more work and sources with significant coverage in order to meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) ––FormalDude talk 07:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Habib Ahmed

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. HeinzMaster (talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

He has a Wisden obituary, which is usually a sign that there is much more coverage available. It's not cited, and I won't be able to add it today, but it's a good indicator that if we were able to access sources - and we're almost totally reliant on printed sources for the era in which the bloke played - that we'd find scads. The commonality of the name and the era and where he played means it looks as if it's difficult to find early accessible internet sources however, which is a shame as with a career that long we'd find a bunch. I'm sure people will object to a redirect for various reasons, but I'm not sure what else we'll be able to do here - I guess a redirect to whichever team he played more most frequently in the Ranji would be best, unless any India-based editors can find more in paper archives or in local non-English language sources. I'll need access to CricketArchive to figure out which that is though. It would be a shame to lose an article about an obviously notable non-white, non-anglophone person however. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we were looking at a redirect here, the List of Hyderabad cricketers would be the best choice - that's the team he played much more frequently for. The list needs updating at some point as well. I am minded towards keeping based on the Wisden obit though. They really don't give those away these days. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Played in 61 first-class matches, which makes the nomination quite frankly odd. Given the amount of matches he played in, there is undoubtedly coverage in print media from the era. He was afforded an obituary by Wisden, which shows his notability as a cricketer. Passes WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this claimed likely existence of sources sufficient to meet WP:NRV which requires "verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability"?

Where is this obituary? If you look up his name along with wisden obituary, nothing shows up, neither does anything on Wisden page. Participation in some matches doesn't make you notable nor pass WP:GNG [23] HeinzMaster (talk) 16:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's here. You'll notice the different way the name is transliterated. You might want to double check if there are any other versions of the name - this is very common for names from the subcontinent and can cause all sorts of problems when you're looking for references. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per StickyWicket. St Anselm (talk) 04:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I believe that there is the reasonable assumption that this player should pass WP:GNG in offline coverage and non-English language coverage with the career he had and with the obituary that we already have as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify due to lack of significant coverage. Passing NCRIC does not mean that notability is presumed; that SNG merely tells us that SIGCOV is likely to exist. The probable existence of sources is not enough, they actually need to be presented here and at least one needs to be added to the article per NSPORTS. The obituary is routine and not sufficient to meet SIGCOV. I propose draftification instead of outright deletion to give folks time to add these sources so that the article might be saved. –dlthewave ☎ 12:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever opinion you might be of about other things, a Wisden obituary is not in any way routine. They don't give them away in any sense and tonnes of well known players don't get one. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps "routine" wasn't the right word, but that very short obituary really isn't the type of in-depth writing that would contribute to SIGCOV. The fact that Wisden is selective about who gets an obituary doesn't mean that the person is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards. Again, we need SIGCOV sourcing to be present in the article in order to keep it per WP:SPORTBASIC. –dlthewave ☎ 15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a jolly good indicator that much more writing about the person is likely to exist though - because of the selective nature. I mean, if we really have to have any form of sports notability guideline at all - and I'm not at all sure that any of them serve any practical purpose at all right now - then "got a Wisden obituary" is probably about the level to have them at. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I !voted to draftify instead of delete so that sources can eventually be added if they are found. We do in fact have a sports notability guideline and it doesn't mention Wisden obituaries or anything similar; you might consider opening an RfC if you'd like to add this, however it would be on a "sources are likely to exist" basis. The fact is that our guidelines don't presume notability in situations like this, and for sports figures community consensus is that sources actually have to be found and added to the article. This wouldn't even pass the AfC process as is. –dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep per Blue Square Thing: if a high probability exists of additional sources that can solidify notability, it's better to work on the article rather than delete it. That seems to be the case here. Royal Autumn Crest (talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Dlthewave. A three-sentence obituary is just not SIGCOV no matter who wrote it. If it's truly "indicative" of further sources existing, then six months of incubation should be sufficient to find it. NSPORT is very clear that a source of SIGCOV must be in the article, and since that is not forthcoming the article currently fails our guidelines and should not be kept in mainspace. JoelleJay (talk) 06:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And frankly, that goes against WP:NEXIST, which should take precedence. St Anselm (talk) 04:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I have to agree with Dlthewave and JoelleJay. In its current form, the article does not pass the guidelines and is very limited. However, other users have insisted that offline coverage and non-English language coverage is likely to exist, which I do not doubt. Draftify will give users time to find, improve and expand the article, and if necessary, we can review the article again at some point in the future. Unfortunately, if it isn’t in the article and is only likely to exist, we cannot keep the article going forward, but Draftify will give users time to save the article. Fats40boy11 (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Wisden entry indicates that notability is possible, however the sources don't currently establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:58, 31 July 2022 (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.

Proposed merge candidates

Proposed deletion candidates

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 ===Articles for deletion===
 <!-- New AFD's should be placed on top of the list, directly below this line -->
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cheraldine Oudolf}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jackie Clark}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John West (cricketer, born 1861)}}