Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subroto Das (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 July 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. ✗plicit 12:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Subroto Das[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)

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. Although the previous AfD was recent, the article should be reevaluated because it quite clearly fails WP:NSPORT which requires a minimum of one SIGCOV source to be provided. –dlthewave ☎ 04:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and India. –dlthewave ☎ 04:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NSPORT is the guideline, not NCRIC, and an athlete cannot pass NSPORT without at least one SIGCOV being provided. Further, NSPORT doesn't presume notability, it just suggests that coverage is likely to exist, and in this case as with the other four articles previously kept on the grounds of NCRIC it appears that no coverage exists. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per StickyWicket in the last AfD. St Anselm (talk) 06:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so moving past the fact the previous AfD was closed as keep with the specific rationale that the benefit of the doubt be applied to begin with, we then have competing guidelines and some policies to consider.

Yes, the article in the condiition that it's in right now lacks sourcing. That's because those sources that are very likely to exist are inaccessible to someone such as myself - English speaking, sat in front of a computer and not on the sub-continent. Does this mean that they don't exist? No, and although it's not absolutely certain that there do exist reasonable levels of sourcing, I'd suggest very strongly indeed that there are likely to be sources out there, but the majority are very likely indeed to not be available in digitised archives.

So, what do we do about this brown person from a non-anglophone country who did their thing before the internet and globalised news were a thing? Do we take a fundamentalist line and say, no, we absolutely must delete the article? Or do we suggest that actually the article existing is not an affront to any reasonable standard of notability in a major sport in the country he comes from, and do we suggest that the benefit of the doubt would be better applied? What is Wikipedia for? Are we reinforcing systematic biases against brown people and non-anglophone countries, or are we pushing the bounds of what an encyclopaedia is? Does our policy (not guideline) of WP:NOTPAPER not apply here, to an extent? Or WP:5P1 and WP:5P5? WP:NOTDIRECTORY does not apply - there is context, albeit not very much.

So, how do we approach this? I am almost certain that sources do exist and that it is within the boundaries of acceptability to apply the benefit of the doubt to articles such as this. On those grounds I can see a case for keeping the article. What I can't see is any ground whatsoever for deleting it - a clear and obvious WP:ATD applies - we can merge and redirect, with a note added to the entry, to List of Bihar cricketers. Personally I think that there is a stronger argument for keeping - the chap played the major sport in his country over a period of more than 10 years for a top-level team. I can understand why this might frustrate people, but I'd rather support the basic premise and policy that this is not a paper encyclopaedia and seek to expand the boundaries if what we can include. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:08, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with your argument for keeping is that the community decided to require that all sports biographies include at least one example of WP:SIGCOV. If you were able to find that one example your argument might be appropriate in the short term, but given its absence your argument must be rejected per WP:CONLEVEL. As for your argument of a redirect, there issue is that he also played for East Zone; we cannot assume which article readers will be searching for, and thus a redirect is not appropriate per WP:R#DELETE #1. BilledMammal (talk) 11:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep... and I quote from before "This player has played nearly 50 first-class matches, so the chances of there being no coverage in local non-English sources is virtually nil. As a rule of thumb, the more matches someone plays, the more coverage that is likely to exist." We are not Anglopedia and cricket is played in countries where coverage is not yet widely digitalised. That many appearances almost certainly guarantees written press coverage, though sadly, Bihar is a little too far from rural Hampshire for me to get to have a look. The community, should be defined as "those who contribute zero article creation, and spend their time obsessing over policy which nobody in the real world cares about..." and obsessing in the wrong areas, hence we have Pronunciation of GIF as a main page FA, which is the most unencyclopedic gibberish ever. StickyWicket (talk) 15:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I find it a bit ridiculous how dlthewave is going through recent "keep" closures he does not like and is immediately re-nominating the articles for deletion! I do not see why this should be allowed, for, if it was the other way around (article is closed as "delete," someone recreates it), that would not be allowed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per all the above comments and per the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or (my emp.) the sport specific criteria set forth below", and therefore meets WP:NCRIC. At worst, and per the 1st AfD, redirect to List of Bihar cricketers, per WP:ATD, etc. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD a short-while ago. The subject highly likely has non-English language or offline sourcing on him to that would pass GNG. There is a redirect if needed as BST suggests, but the fact that this article is at AfD again after such a short period is at best disappointing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2022 (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.