Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (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 keep. (non-admin closure)  Lourdes  04:03, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Rohan Rangarajan
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG, NCRIC South Nashua (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC) Keep per Captain Raju's additions. South Nashua (talk) 20:20, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:18, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:NCRIC as per nom and WP:GNG. Domdeparis (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * He passes WP:NCRIC.  Greenbörg  (talk)  13:04, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you please re-read the article and the third point of WP:NCRIC. He passes. Jack &#124; talk page 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

*Delete - He does not seem to meet the notability criteria for WP:NCRIC. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)  References
 * Keep – Passes WP:GNG and WP:NCRIC.I found some source/ref.The reference has been added below this line: CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * asiancricket.org
 * barodacricketassociation
 * straitstimes
 * cricketmalaysia
 * singaporecricket.org
 * gettyimages.co.uk
 * espncricinfo.com
 * espncricinfo
 * cricketarchive
 * cricbuzz.com
 * Can you check it again? He has appeared in division six or above. so why delete?  Greenbörg  (talk)  13:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Would you please re-read the article and the third point of WP:NCRIC. He passes. Jack &#124; talk page 13:41, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Greenbörg and Jack I've already changed my vote.Because of finding references/source. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 17:52, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm certainly no cricket expert, but doesn't he meet the third bullet point of WP:NCRIC by representing Singapore at the 2017 ICC World Cricket League Division Three?? JTtheOG (talk) 06:08, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, in those terms he would certainly meet NCRIC. It should be noted that I disagree with the way that NCRIC is written and would always look for the GNG in any deletion case surrounding a cricketer. I have no further comment in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:25, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No, your comment should NOT be noted per WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Follow WP:CONSENSUS at WP:CRIC re WP:CRIN. If you don't like it, propose changes at WT:CRIC. In short, put up or shut up. Jack &#124; talk page 13:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough. Thanks for the clarification. JTtheOG (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss JTtheOG's question

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  09:16, 14 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There is a question that probably merits an answer.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SophisticatedSwampert let's talk about that 04:50, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It clearly meets the WP:NCRIC criteria so should be kept. We currently don't have sources to pass WP:GNG but it is rule of thumb to find someone who passes WP:GNG or not. Resources are always not online they could be found in local newspapers and cricket books, magazines.  Greenbörg  (talk)  13:00, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Point 3 of WP:CRIN (and of its WP:NCRIC summary) clearly states that anyone who has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above is a notable player. This has been agreed by WP:CRIC per WP:CONSENSUS. As Greenbörg| rightly says, we do not have to justify GNG for anyone who meets NSPORTS following consensus at the village pump forum. WP:NSPORTS was not amended after that discussion and still rules that The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline (GNG) or the sport specific criteria (SSC) set forth below. WP:NCRIC is a long-accepted part of the SSC and the operative word in the ruling is or. Jack &#124; talk page 13:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC. Nomination is wrong. Johnlp (talk) 13:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Further comments. In fact, the nomination is disruptive. The village pump policy proposal was Village pump (policy), discussed last month, and the the RfC said not to nominate articles for deletion indiscriminately. There have been several of these indiscriminate nominations since the RfC and they have all been rejected. Jack &#124; talk page 13:53, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Passes WP:NCRIC and per the RfC noted above. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep - can we please continue to make this point clear somewhere, so that this stops happening? "..it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Defending every single cricket biography in an NPOV context is becoming boring. The fact that we haven't had to amend the cricket criteria on NSPORTS is testament to the fact that "it just works".
 * Blue Square Thing, I consider you a good friend, but to claim you "don't like the way" something is done or said without wishing to make any further comment, such as how to fix it to your liking, is counterproductive to any possible debate. Bobo. 17:29, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I may have missed something but in the discussion about NSPORTS at the village pump I read: "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. There is a general unhappiness with the permissiveness of some NSPORTS criteria, but no consensus in this discussion on any specific changes to any of them."
 * I may have missed something but for me that means that a deletion discussion should be based on GNG rather than subject specific criteria. Domdeparis (talk) 18:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because there was no consensus to change anything in NSPORTS and that includes the ruling at the top which asserts that The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline (GNG) or the sport specific criteria (SSC) set forth below. It is "either...or..." not one at the expense of the other. Furthermore, the RfC ends by saying: "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". In other words, abide by both GNG and NSPORTS; so the only type of sportsperson who should be denied is one who fails both criteria. You started out by thinking that Rohan fails NCRIC, but he doesn't. Jack &#124; talk page 19:13, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
 * but in the next paragraph of no ports it says "All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." It can't be clearer than that I think.Domdeparis (talk) 03:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Have you read the FAQs on NSPORT ? The first one is very clear about the relationship between GNG and topic specific criteria. GNG trumps it every time. Domdeparis (talk) 03:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * An FAQ does not equate to an in-bold-top-of-main-page-ruling. If the FAQ contradicts the main page, then the FAQ needs to be revised. I'll take a look at it, however. Jack &#124; talk page 08:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've looked at the FAQ, for what it's worth. You have referred to #1 only which says: "(The topic-specific notability guidelines) are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them". Two points about Rohan. First, I have already found two reliable sources (both added to the article yesterday) which meet this requirement. Second, Rohan met the requirements of CRIN only a few days before this AfD was raised and, as there is no apparent reason why his career should not continue, further sources will certainly exist in due course and the statement stipulates that sufficient time must be allowed to locate them. As for "what is sufficient time", please see FAQ #4 which says, inter alia: "There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case..... given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found..... allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find". As Rohan is Singaporean, he is unlikely to receive coverage in British publications other than Wisden and the online sources already cited. He may well be mentioned in next year's Wisden re the matches he played in May so, assuming it a Wisden citation should be necessary (it isn't, because of the other two), you would have to wait until next April when the 2018 edition is published, which means ten months would be "sufficient time" to locate that citation. Jack &#124; talk page 09:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - the nominator has changed his opening delete vote to keep in his opening spiel. Can we infer this is therefore a "withdrawn nomination"? Bobo. 10:45, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Has played in the World Cricket League at a high enough level to meet WP:NCRIC.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:38, 3 July 2017 (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.