Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena (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 delete. Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:55, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Subodh Saxena
AfDs for this article:


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

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. The single non-database source is a mere passing mention and does not meet the SIGCOV requirement. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC) Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous discussion no one has been able to find suitable sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket,  and India. –dlthewave ☎ 15:29, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per the strong consensus at Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. StAnselm (talk) 15:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R and WP:CHEAP.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a misrepresentation of NCRIC from an editor who is now banned for their AfD conduct. That section actually says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof" (emphasis mine). –dlthewave ☎


 * Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete I'd like to think that GNG passing sourcing does exist on the subject, likely in offline or non-English language media, but none has been forthcoming since the last AfD around a year ago, hence my weak delete. I would suggest a redirect, but given he played for a number of sides there isn't a suitable one here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:07, 1 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.