Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kant Singh


 * 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. ~Swarm~ {sting} 03:06, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Kant Singh

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  19:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Has played in 15 matches across all three formats, meeting WP:NCRIC. At worst, redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers, per WP:ATD. Or keep simply for having the best name in cricket.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:24, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers Has played a fair few matches (6 FC, 4 List-A, 5 T20), but a search didn't bring up much coverage. From the career he had sources may well exist locally in Indian sources. Redirect though a good WP:ATD if nothing can be found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:38, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep With 6 FC, 4 List A and 5 T20 matches, he is well above the WP:NCRIC threshold, even taking into account any of the proposed amendments to that standard. There does also appear to be some coverage which has not been picked up in the article which would lead to a WP:GNG pass- for example, his name comes up in the (much more limited) English version of cricketnmore.com (quoted on Yahoo Sports), which leads me to suspect that he's likely to have more extensive coverage in the Hindi version of the same website; not being able to read Hindi, I couldn't confirm this. Therefore pretty likely to be able to pass WP:GNG given someone who can read in Hindi spending some time on this. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * please provide links to these sources; all I'm seeing on those websites are basic stats profiles. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As I said, the coverage in English online sources is limited, but see for example https://www.thehindu.com/sport/cricket/Badrinath-blazes-with-the-bat-finally/article16671373.ece; https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/top-stories/ranji-trophy-chhattisgarh-create-history-with-first-win/articleshow/54763143.cms; https://www.firstpost.com/firstcricket/sports-news/vijay-hazare-trophy-ms-dhonis-quick-fire-century-guides-jharkhand-to-78-run-win-3303654.html. There has clearly been a reasonable amount of coverage of him, but a combination of geoblocks, the various languages of India, and the fact that much of it is likely to be in hardcopy makes it difficult to access. But none of the linked articles is a scorecard- they're coverage in Indian national newspapers. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on. These are the definition of passing mentions in routine match reports. Even if we had fifty of these it wouldn't even come close to WP:SPORTCRIT ("sources... must provide reports beyond routine game coverage") or WP:SIGCOV. They are simply not coverage of Kant Singh and tell us nothing about him. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You think that, I think differently. My point is that if there is coverage in major nationwide Indian newspapers- newspapers covering over 10% of the world's population- in English, there is almost inevitably much deeper coverage in other languages, in hardcopy, or in regional reports (which in India can still encompass more people than a country the size of Scotland). I don't understand the urgency to delete article after article which is likely to pass WP:GNG given some work. We're gonna have to, as usual, agree to disagree. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is coverage of the matches, not of Singh himself. At AFD you actually need to produce the sources, not just offer more vague promises of existence in other languages or offline – also this guy played in the internet era so if nothing can be found online, that significantly reduces the chances that any can be found offline. Not all countries cover individual cricketers to the same granularity that happens in England/Australia/New Zealand. If coverage cannot be found, subjects like this are better covered in lists. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. DevaCat1 has convinced me that more sources exist for this player. And with 15 appearances across the three formats, it isn't an unreasonable number. StickyWicket (talk) 18:58, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Nothing we have passes WP:SPORTCRIT and therefore WP:GNG yet. If non-English sources exist, that might be enough - a redirect might be the best idea here until we can actually create a decent article. SportingFlyer  T · C  20:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers. Per my comments above. No significant coverage found so fails WP:GNG. This supersedes the presumption of notability afforded by NCRIC. Clearly not enough content to warrant a standalone article, so it would serve readers better if covered in the list article (which needs expansion). wjematherplease leave a message... 09:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Redirect or delete, per Wjemather. When does the cycle of passing off the burden of proving notability to hypothetical future editors end? JoelleJay (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Thousands of articles about athletes have the same problem. If we should delete this article, then we have to delete thousands of other articles too. Wasraw (talk) 13:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No doubt, but that is not a valid reason for keeping this one. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You could say that for every article under AfD, and then nothing would ever be deleted... JoelleJay (talk) 15:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 07:03, 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.