Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohinder Kumar

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. Tone 20:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohinder Kumar

[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)

Fails WP:NCRICKET comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. comrade waddie96 (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NCRIC. Please read again. Störm (talk) 15:55, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:39, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - with this sort of misunderstanding of the notability guidelines, the nominator should just withdraw. St Anselm (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Incorrect nomination; subject passes WP:NCRICKET. Harrias ^talk 18:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The bare bones sourcing in no way meets GNG. It is time to throw away the cricket notability guidelines because they clearly do not conform to GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While the cricket SNG might not be great, in this case I think it is doing its job perfectly. For an English or Australian cricketer who had played over 100 matches at the highest level of domestic cricket, we would have a raft of sources. However, as Kumar played in Pakistan, it is less straight-forward to find equivalent sources. Indeed, I for one wouldn't know where to start looking for Sindhi sources. If you are claiming the cricket SNG "clearly do not conform to GNG" in this case, then on that basis, we should change all SNGs to basically say "English-language subjects only, foreigners apply via the GNG". Harrias ^talk 07:43, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. The nominator clearly hasn't understood WP:NCRIC which they are saying the subject doesn't meet; the subject breezes past it. StickyWicket (talk) 09:44, 9 May 2020 (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.