Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeev Dua

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. Passes WP:NCRICKET. (non-admin closure) Winged Blades^Godric 16:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeev Dua[edit]

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

Neither the article itself nor its references demonstrate that the subject is notable. Eddie Blick (talk) 18:07, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - clearly passes WP:NCRICKET as a first-class umpire - WP:BEFORE has not been followed. St Anselm (talk) 10:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Despite the guidance given at WP:NCRICKET, I'm not convinced that this article meets the WP:GNG. The subject is an active umpire, and seems to have been for a fairly long time, but despite this a Google search doesn't seem to reveal anything much about them. WP:NCRICKET suggests a level at which a player or umpire is likely to be notable, but ultimately, the GNG provides a better yardstick. In this case, I would say that the subject is a non-notable domestic cricket umpire and does not meet our notability criteria. Harrias ^talk 14:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 03:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I have expanded the article. He has actually stood in five women's international matches. This should now pass WP:GNG – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per above. Passes WP:NCRICKET and has officiated in many Ranji Trophy matches as can be evidenced by a quick search. Umpires generally don't occupy much press coverage, until they reach the elite panels and I believe that it should be a Keep in good faith. Jupitus Smart 06:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails WP:GNG; the presumption of notability in WP:NCRICKET seems to be false."Umpires generally don't occupy much press coverage, until they reach the elite panels" is an argument to delete, not to keep. If they even don't generate press coverage until that, then the WP:NCRICKET criteria are possibly not that accurate.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:15, 9 April 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.