Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prateek Sinha

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. WP:NCRIC creates a rebuttable presumption of notability, which has been rebutted here because nobody has found WP:GNG-compliant sources. Sandstein 08:43, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prateek Sinha[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. Störm (talk) 19:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in eight F/C matches. At worst, redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers, per WP:ATD. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:21, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect to List of Chhattisgarh cricketers Has played 8 FC matches, and there is a reasonable amount of coverage in match reports, but probably not enough to pass GNG. Sources may exist in Indian sources though. Redirect is a good WP:ATD though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:40, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Eight first class matches, including 18 wickets, which were in the Ranji Trophy, so a clear pass of WP:NCRIC. It's unlikely that there has been no newspaper coverage in India of a regular Ranji Trophy player, although that may well be in non-English sources and may not be online. Really strong scope to pass WP:GNG, even if he doesn't play any more first-class games (and, at 28, he might yet do so). DevaCat1 (talk) 20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing in no way meets GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As you should be well aware, John, that's no kind of argument for deletion- it is the notability of the subject which is at issue, not how well the current iteration of the article is sourced (see WP:ARTN). DevaCat1 (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, verifiabilty rules clearly state that articles need to be sourced. No one here has argued in any way such sources exist, and verifiability clearly means they need to be attached to the article. People need to stop invalid claims sources are out there and start actually telling us precisely where they are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete, per nom and Rugbyfan. Well within the internet era, if SIGCOV exists it should be online and searchable. NCRIC isn't a free, indefinite pass for everyone who might possibly have coverage in another language. JoelleJay (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 07:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DevaCat. StickyWicket (talk) 21:02, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meeting an SNG such as NCRIC is a shortcut to identify subjectsthat are likely to meet our notability requirements. This is handy when creating new articles or preventing articles to be speedy deleted or PRODded. However, if a subject is challenged at AfD, it is not enough any more to simply say "meets NCRIC". Instead, it actually has to be shown that in this particular instance the SNG correctly predicted notability, that is, it has to be shown that GNG is met. As Johnpacklambert has already observed, no sources meeting GNG have been found by the participants in this debate. Here, GNG is not met. --Randykitty (talk) 21:36, 22 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.