Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amit Upadhyay

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 and redirect to List of Oxford University cricketers. Daniel (talk) 01:04, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amit Upadhyay

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

My name is Amit Upadhyay, and this page is in my name. I am not a notable enough person to be featured on wikipedia, and I wish to exercise the right to be forgotten. Please delete this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coldwinterfloor (talk • contribs) 05:38, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Quite interesting revelation by the proposer. Regardless the fact you are indeed the subject or not, AfD outcomes are not decided by representations but by the merit of the subject and arguments. On this occasion it doesn't seem like to meet WP:NCRICKET, therefore delete. RationalPuff (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he meets WP:NCRIC by playing in a first-class match. At worst, redirect to List of Oxford University Cricket Club players Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; university matches may have been afforded first class status at the time, but in no way are they considered the "highest level of domestic or international cricket" as required by WP:NCRIC, so this does not gain the extremely weak presumption of notability afforded by that guideline. Also does not meet WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 13:18, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Oxford University cricketers which is an established alternative to deletion with articles such as this. Whilst he played a single first-class match, any attempt to justify that the University Match still retained top-class status in 2004 is laughable. There is a fringe argument that can be made for some MCCU players, but not those who only played for CU or OU. The match retained FC status for historical reasons only and was an anachronism for at least a decade before his appearance. I don't see that he meets the criteria for academics and there's no obvious GNG level of sourcing here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The match was not at the highest level of cricket, so considering playing it a sign of notability goes against the general principals of sport notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although our sports guidelines somehow claim that walking onto the field for a single top-level professional game is enough for notability, that principle hasn't been extended to university-level sports. And it appears clear that it is WP:TOOSOON for academic notability. So regardless of whether the WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE can be verified by the subject going through WP:OTRS, I think we can delete this. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.