Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brijesh Tomar


 * 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. Consensus is that the subject is notable. While the nominator raised some objections, those were not shared by any other participant and there is a clear consensus emerging to keep. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Brijesh Tomar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Well there's this on him captaining the side, and his 55 game career will likely have brought him coverage both offline and in other Indian sources. I imagine there's more out there in a search as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * and You mean this CreativeNorth (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * . Yep, even more sources! This was clearly a WP:POINT nomination done in bad faith, compounded by the nominators desperate message at the end to the closer. StickyWicket (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Def. WP:POINT, and that ten articles were mass-nom'd by the same editor in four minutes, would also suggest ZERO before work by the nom too.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily - that's not really a fantastic article in terms of notability, just says he qualified to become a referee. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It could be the most complete source in the known universe, you'd still do a JPL and vote delete. StickyWicket (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Neutral It would be of great use to the project to demonstrate that he was covered in non-English language sources. The only significant coverage I can find of him is the Cricinfo article linked above, and that's arguably SIGCOV. I have found him mentioned in a couple press reports, but he is mentioned only in the scorecard. More possible sources than most cricket AfDs we've seen of late, not convinced we're at WP:GNG, if English is the extent of the coverage I'd be a clear delete. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:56, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm   (talk)  07:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Played in 45+ games in a career that spanned nearly a decade.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:55, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep 55 qualifying matches, a FC ton. Plus all the various comments above. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and only one non-database source has been found. –dlthewave ☎ 14:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)


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