Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kagiso Mohale

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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:25, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kagiso Mohale

[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)

Poorly sourced cricketer BLP that fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Ineligible for PROD. No suitable redirect exists AFAIK. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and South Africa. JTtheOG (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as what JP has found alone seems to indicate that it passes GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it appears the Cricinfo spelling of his first name is incorrect, on CricketArchive as Kagisho Mohale and a search of that name shows up more coverage. This, that and a Diamond Fields Advertiser piece found on Newsbank re his promotion to the Knights franchise as starters. 100 FC/LA/T20 appearances represents decent amount of cricket notabilìty. JP (Talk) 18:44, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing this out. While I don't think the first two sources contribute much (three-ish sentences of coverage and an interview), the third one is much more promising and an indication that there might more coverage out there to meet GNG. JTtheOG (talk) 19:14, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Spelling of his name differs between sources, but certainly WP:GNG passing coverage that JP has found. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Beyond what has been found, this should perhaps dictate logic should be used – if a cricketer makes this many appearances at the highest level, then they're probably notable. AA (talk) 21:29, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and mention in the article the dual version of his name's spelling. I would say he passes WP:SIGCOV. In addition to the sources already mentioned there is another source here: [1]. Contributor892z (talk) 19:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that this is a WP:MIRROR. JTtheOG (talk) 19:50, 4 May 2024 (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.