Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ashwini Chaturvedi


 * 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. Rugbyfan22's argument is actually one for deletion, given that they say that they have only found passing mentions. There's broad community consensus by now that sportspeople with no substantial coverage in reliable sources don't get an article, just like everybody else.  Sandstein  19:20, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Ashwini Chaturvedi

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

Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket,  and India. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 04:29, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep It's my belief that someone playing this number of fixtures, at the time he played them, will have GNG passing sourcing in either offline, or non-English language sources. I've gone weak keep as in a simple online search, I've only been able to find passing mentions, but I believe with his record there will be coverage somewhere. There's no suitable redirect here given he's played for a number of different sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That may be your belief, but the presumption of notability for first-class cricketers (along with all participation-based criteria) was rejected by community consensus earlier this year because it turned out not to be a good predictor of significant coverage. To comply with the guideline, you'll need to provide SIGCOV sources to support your Keep !vote. –dlthewave ☎ 02:01, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Mankading a batsman (with Mankad in the opposing team, although not batting at the time...) brings with it a likelihood of coverage somewhere. Playing against the touring England side also does, as does a Wisden bio. This is either a very weak keep or a redirect to either List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers (26 of his 37 first-class matches were for UP; the next highest is 7 matches) or, possibly, List of Mankading incidents in cricket. Per long-established precedent in the case of cricketer articles when an ATD exists. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * How do we know he was involved in a Mankad? StAnselm (talk) 21:10, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I followed the "what links here" to a list of mankad incidents - the scorecard then checks out. I presume it would have received some press coverage - they invariably do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong keep extended career at top-flight domestic level and some top-flight coaching also, and per the offline arguments above Bumbubookworm (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Question. I hear the argument about "a likelihood of coverage somewhere." But WP:SPORTBASIC explicitly mandates: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." Do we have at least one such example of SIGCOV? Cbl62 (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Absent an actual showing of even a single example of SIGCOV, SPORTBASIC (quoted above) quite clearly mandates that we delete. Also, the arguments that we should assume that coverage exists runs contrary to WP:NCRIC which states that, even in the case of players at the highest domestic level, significant coverage "should not be assumed to exist." Cbl62 (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails GNG and NSPORTS, specifically SPORTBASIC #5 which requires SIGCOV sourcing to be present in the article. The mere likelihood of sources is insufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 04:39, 14 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.