Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yash Dhull


 * 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. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 05:27, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Yash Dhull

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

Going with the logic of - "We don't have articles on under-19 cricketers. For a cricketer to have an article they must meet WP:NCRIC which states a player has to have played a first-class/List A/Twenty20 match to be included. Dhull doesn't meet this criteria. PS: Why was this article accepted at AfC without checking the relevant project criteria?". - Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, your opinion is crucial here because you have accepted this article at AfC. Feel free to put your views. -Hatchens (talk) 04:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, the fact that this guy fails WP:NCRIC is completely irrelevant, as he passes WP:GNG with coverage in the Hindustan Times here, The Hindu here and The Indian Express here. Any specific SNG such as NCRIC cannot override a GNG pass, they can only supplement it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Devonian Wombat - Aren't the first and thirds of those interviews? Not independent coverage unfortunately, since the information in them comes form the interviewee. One more non-interview source and I'd happily vote keep. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No, those articles are pretty clearly not interviews as they are not formatted as one, with the journalist asking questions and the person responding. This is an example of an interview, the act of including a quote in an article does not make it an interview. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. Why was the PROD removed to start an AfD? Totally unnecessary. Firstly, WP:NCRIC is not completely irrelevant, we have project inclusion criteria for a reason. Secondly, the coverage is from interviews, so coverage is not independent and lacks anything beyond routine coverage. Under-19 cricket is not played to a substantial enough level where the ICC even affords the matches any level of status, so we must stick rigidly to what the ICC define as important matches, and thus people playing in these matches must mirror that criteria. StickyWicket (talk) 12:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. And where is the consistency? This stub is little different to the stubs Lugnuts was creating, for players who actually have played at a senior level, yet they were deemed 'sub-standard'. StickyWicket (talk) 12:20, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails WP:NCRIC.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - there are sources - and quite good ones; the problem is that he hasn't done anything particularly notable yet. It's close, but I don't think this is a suitable subject for a standalone article - certainly not in it's current form anyway. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Agree with BST on this one. There's sources on this guy and a couple of articles which could potentially pass him for GNG in the article and in a search, however they tend to relate to him being named as India U19 captain, which is a bit WP:ONEEVENT at this stage. The guy may well on to play notably in FC/LA/T20 cricket or even internationally, however at this stage I don't think he's ready for an article unless more GNG passing sources turn up. Not seeing a suitable WP:ATD here either, and that may also prevent article creation in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:18, 15 January 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.