Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Deshpande

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. Consensus is clear that the subject passes GNG and the relevant SNG. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar Deshpande[edit]

[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)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Played 34 games in his career, and captained one of his sides. There's a few bits in a simple search but due to the timing of his career I expect there to be much more offline and in Indian sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are some basic sources from a quick search, and he comes from a pre-Internet era. Therefore, highly likely that sources exist, but they are offline, and quite possibly not in English. Neither of which are reasons to delete this article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also he seems to be a record holder for most dismissals in an innings [1] (p40, can't see page before to find more details). We shouldn't be basing notability on a Google search, especially when both his first and last names appear to be relatively common. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:00, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played in 34 F/C games in a career that spanned more than two decades. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He played 34 first class matches and has a FC century to his name. This is farcical- are we going to face AfDs for every player from India before 2000 because their careers haven't yet been written up properly and there aren't good web sources? A reasonable WP:BEFORE necessarily involves offline checks for somebody who played in the 1950s and 1960s. DevaCat1 (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone who played 34 times at the highest level of a global sport must have attracted media coverage in his home country that is well beyond any GNG requirement here, let alone SNG. As others have rightly said, pre-internet Indian sources are not readily available outside the country. I searched on Google for something akin to the Wisden Almanack and it came up with Indian Cricket (annual). According to our article on that publication, it had the same level of detail as Wisden and so a player who made numerous first-class appearances across several seasons must have been well documented. The nomination is out of order and should be withdrawn. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:11, 14 April 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.