Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amitabh Vijayvargiya (2nd nomination)


 * 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)

Amitabh Vijayvargiya
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

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)
 * 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)
 * Keep per the strong consensus at 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. StAnselm (talk) 15:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 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 and WP:CHEAP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Delete, if enough refs do exist, this will be recreated separately from a database listing. — VersaceSpace  🌃 01:53, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.