Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pallav Kumar


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:51, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Pallav Kumar

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  20:14, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak keep 2 FC and 2 LA matches, of which 3 were for Durham. There seems to be coverage online of him playing for Durham, and there may be further coverage in Wisden. Weak keep for now, but happy to change depending on Wisden coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - Can we please be careful? Contemporary-ish first-class cricketers for county teams? Storm, I mean no harm, but by copy-pasting deletion rationales and unilaterally redirecting players with zero discussion, you provide no evidence that you carry out any prior checks to what you call "notability". It just makes it look like you're wishing to delete for the sake of deletion because you have nothing to add yourself. There are more productive ways of getting eyes on an article than mass-AfD nominations. Bobo. 21:30, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. StickyWicket (talk) 10:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Can we please stop these AfD nominations for first class cricketers. Tintin 17:22, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - it's amazing how little coverage there is of him online in spite of him playing during the "online years!" This is the best source:  (I can't read the second, but it's a match report.) The entirety of the other coverage (and I am being very generous with the word coverage here, as there's nothing more than sentence-long mentions at most):          I know the cricket project will see this and go "sources!", but if we truly went by what notability guidelines say (i.e., removing any insignificant mentions or match report coverage), the AfD isn't inappropriate. The article is pretty "grey" in terms of notability and I'm going back and forth between weak delete, weak keep, and neutral - settling on weak delete mostly out of respect for what the guidelines say, but a weak keep is also probably justifiable. SportingFlyer  T · C  11:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rugbyfan22.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:46, 24 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.