Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saiteja Mukkamalla


 * 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 redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. I have to discount the "keep" opinions because they mostly do not address what community consensus has established every biography needs: substantial coverage in reliable sources. And those that do cite sources do not (or unconvincingly) address the concerns raised about these sources that they are not substantial coverage. I'm also discounting the input by Lugnuts because they have since been banned.  Sandstein  19:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Saiteja Mukkamalla

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket,  and United States of America. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. He has played at least one senior ODI, the highest form of one-day cricket, which satisfies WP:CRIC Bs1jac (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:NCRIC (WP:CRIC is the wikiproject) states that significant coverage is likely to exist for international cricketers in Test playing nations. That is not the case here, so WP:GNG must be met, and none of the current sources in the article contribute to demonstrating that. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * There are a lot of mentions in press reports. Once they start to call him things like "teenage prodigy" it makes me wonder if there might be enough here to suggest that keeping the article wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. There's evidence through those that he is also referred to Sai Mukkamalla, Sai Teja Mukkamalla and Sai Reddy Mukkamalla. We've had this issue with transliterations several times recently which is all a bit unfortunate. In particular, using Sai Teja adds a number of other mentions to those we already get. Hmmm... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * If you could share 3-4 of the SIGCOV sources you've found, you'd have a good argument for keeping the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep?. As BST said there should be enough SIGCOV if the player actually played ODI unlike T20Is as not ICC member gets to play them. However I've noticed this discrepancy between what's written in WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN. Help in improving articles are expected instead of just blatantly deleting everything. Human (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep/Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers There's clearly coverage on this player, he gets absolute heaps of mentions in a simple google search, which would normally suggest that there is likely something out there that would pass him for GNG, however in this albeit simple search I've not really found anything other than these passing mentions (although absolutely loads of them). I'd like to think with these amounts of mentions there is enough for a GNG pass, hence me suggesting keep, although I wouldn't mind a redirect here per WP:ATD until a bit more turns up, which I believe it will. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per BST. Here's one source for starters. Worst case then redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. None of the sources found contain significant coverage, only passing mentions in routine sports reporting. This is entirely insufficient to pass WP:GNG and build a policy-compliant article, per WP:WHYN. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think there's a little bit more than just passing mentions, but we'd need to build a more significant set of those to meet WP:BASIC. I doubt I'll be able to find time over the next week to do the sorts of work that would be necessary to do this, so there's nothing wrong with the non-destructive remedy of using a redirect for now. I suspect there's more to come on the chap, fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing that has been presented meets the requirements of GNG/BASIC/SPORTCRIT; specifically, primary sources "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject", and (other than the usual databases) routine passing mentions in primary sports reporting is pretty much all that has been shown to exist. In these cases, lists serve our readers better than producing unbalanced stub articles synthesised from such sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:07, 30 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Per BST and Lugnuts. Another poorly thought out AfD on an international cricketer. StickyWicket (talk) 23:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per accurate reasoning by Keep voters. —Natalie  Ricci Natalie 09:32, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. The keep arguments allude to sources but other than one borderline source above, nothing has been found. "There should be sources" is not and has never been an argument for notability and WP:NCRIC only says "Significant coverage is likely to exist" it does not say that playing at a certain level creates notability. NCRIC only says there may be sources at a certain level; it is neither a guarantee that sources will exist, nor does playing at any given level create even an assumption of notability. Sources are still required and notability must be demonstrated; we can't allude to hypothetical sources as a reason to keep an article, and per WP:GOOGLEHITS having "absolute heaps of mentions" on Google doesn't mean anything as it's the quality and significance of coverage that matters. - Aoidh (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per BST, Lugnuts, and StickyWicket. -- WellThisIs TheReaper  Grim 16:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:PERX. BST said BASIC has not (yet) been met and did not give an argument for keeping the article, so what are you basing your keep argument on, exactly? - Aoidh (talk) 16:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * BST said that "we'd need to build a more significant set of those [passing mentions] to meet WP:BASIC". As said before, there are an abundant amount of passing mentions in which they give a mention or some regard on this person. Some "significant" mentions I have found so far include this and this from Cricbuzz, this and this from Emerging Cricket, and this and this from Stabroek News and Bernews. -- WellThisIs TheReaper  Grim 18:13, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * When you say As I said before what are you referring to? Your first comment literally only said "Per BST, Lugnuts, and StickyWicket", none of whom make any argument for keeping the article in line with any Wikipedia policy or guideline. As for your sources, every single one of those is a trivial mention, and do not contribute to WP:BASIC in any way, and fall far short of WP:GNG. If those are the most "significant" sources that can be found, that's just evidence that there should not be an article of this subject on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 20:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I said “as said before”, in reference to BST and Rugby. And Lugnuts and StickyWicket were just adding on to what BST had said. Lugnuts gave a decent secondary source (an example of a “significant” passing mention, as part of WP:BASIC) and StickyWicket just agreed with both BST and Lugnuts. And, in remarks to my “trivial” mentions, there are far more mentions lurking on the Internet and these sources were just some among others which provides more than just a regard in his performance in matches. -- WellThisIs TheReaper  Grim 23:55, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter how many trivial mentions there are out there, they don't contribute to notability and at that point you're just appealing to WP:GHITS. None of those sources describe the subject in any detail beyond passing mentions other than the one single one Lugnuts provided, and even that's not significant coverage. If you had a great number of those kinds of sources that would be an argument for WP:BASIC, but these trivial mentions don't cut it. I would say that this for example could not be more trivial, but this somehow manages. These are as trivial as it is possible to get while still somehow managing to have his name in the source. I think you would be hard pressed to find a source that says less about him while still including his name...and this is the best we can do for sources? This is what you linked as examples of why the article should be kept? All that does is highlight that even the people arguing to keep the article can't find coverage of the article's subject and can't justify it being on Wikipedia. - Aoidh (talk) 01:07, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

I think, as I said above, that there's better than the examples there. I might just get a chance to see what I can identify over the next 48 hours. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:54, 6 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.