Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehboob Almekar

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mehboob Almekar[edit]

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

(1) failure to satisfy notability - one appearance, bowling 36 balls, at state level surely marks the subject for a cricket statistics site but not for the WP general encyclopaedia; he's a cricket nobody and even more incognito on the world stage; (2) no sources Sirlanz 22:48, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:00, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- it's been demonstrated over and over again that lists of statistics inflated into prose do not make for an acceptable topic for an encyclopedia article. This one is sourced to a single statistics aggregator site that's been shown to have non-negligible rates of error, problematic for the biography of a (possibly) living person. I'd support a merge to a list of cricketers by club, but these lists seem to be currently deprecated. Reyk _YO! 15:23, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but improve. See my comments on another AfD asking User:Reyk to justify the assertions he makes about CricketArchive, which are entirely the opposite of my own significant experience. For this player, it's patently an unsatisfactory article, in that if he's still alive he'd be one of the oldest surviving players and that might be worthy of a note. But even without that, he is a first-class cricketer who has played cricket at the highest domestic level in a country that plays Test cricket: he therefore passes WP:CRIN, which is the longer, more explanatory form of WP:NCRIC which is itself the sector notability guideline that links into and informs WP:GNG. Johnlp (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I already did justify my opinion of CricketArchive. I've seen it pop up at AfDs and in discussions regarding notability, and errors keep turning up. Mis-spelling players' names, getting confused about the identity of players with similar names (remember the S Perera debacle?) and those are only the errors we've found out about. In my experience it has a high rate of error. As for NCRIC, because this is a disputed guideline with little to no community support outside of the cricket wikiproject, it is not possible to regard "passes NCRIC" as any kind of AfD argument. The reasons this thing is so heavily disputed is that it is overly inclusive, leading to an excessive proliferation of almost contentless microstubs and the inevitable introduction of inaccuracies into the mainspace. Reyk _YO! 11:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I take Johnlp's point: this is a great article for a cricket enthusiasts' site (and I love the game, by the way). I do not subscribe to the idea that a cricketer of the most ephemeral imaginable prominence (it would be tough to dream up a greater underachiever) can ever satisfy a reasonable standard of general notability. And I repeat "general" because WP is not a specialist cricket enthusiasts' site. And a simple stat entry somewhere is nothing towards notability even in the cricketing sphere. sirlanz 14:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this article fails the general notability guidelines. Those require multiple, third party, reliable sources. Unlike members of national legislatures, cricket players do not get a special pass that allows us to just totally disregard the GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:29, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Academics who have published a book with a reputable academic publisher and been a professor with tenure at a university for 10+ years are not even gauranteed default notability. How is it at all logical we give such to a cricketer who appeared in 1 top level game, and who is only mentioned in a statistical aggregator with no sources actually telling us anything substantial about him? For example Eric R. Dursteler has been a BYU history professor for 19 years, is head of the history department, has had at least 2 books he wrote published by John Hopkins University Press, was a co-author of a 500-plus page book which is the top scholarly work on Mormonism in Italy, and quite possibly the best scholarly work on Mormonism in continental Europe, has published multiple articles, is the book review editor for the Journal of Early Modern History, was a fellow with Harvard's Renasaince Research Institute in Italy, a Fulbright Fellow, and so on. I am still not positve he would pass notability guidelines though. his top cited work is at only 149 citations for example, although google scholar is not as good for history as some subjects because much of the scholarship appears in books that do not show up there as much. Since I took a class from Dursteler (History of France) I also feel I may have too much of a conflict of interest to create the article. Still a standard that excludes someone with multiple books published by top rated academic presses but includes someone who appeared in one cricket game seems odd in dead.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I was considering a weak Keep argument based on the slightly more detailed biographical information - we have names, a date of birth etc... The argument above, however, convinces me that there needs to be an even vague attempt at parity between sectors. Given the date at which he played and the very limited information we have about his one cricket match, I feel it is very unlikely indeed that the sorts of sources required to meet the GNG are likely to be found. They may be, but I feel that on the whole it is extremely unlikely that this will be the case. Given that several RfC (such as this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met, I really don't see where the substantive sources are going to come from here. If sources can be found - and it's entirely possible that they may be, say on his death, then I would have no problem at all with the article being re-created - it's got barely any content and would take a matter of minutes to re-create if sources can be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnpacklambert and Blue Square Thing. Does not pass GNG and seems highly unlikely that sources apart from statistical profiles will be found in the future. Dee 03 14:29, 11 December 2017 (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.