Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 July 29

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kyra Kennedy

Kyra Kennedy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Has no real notability other than being a former politician’s granddaughter. Think about it, Malia and Sasha Obama don’t even have their own articles. StevenBjerke97 talk 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. StevenBjerke97 talk 18:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. Cannot find any substantial coverage in the few sources I found on her. Rogermx (talk) 19:16, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete. fails

  WP:GNG. Loew Galitz (talk) 21:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Fashion, and Massachusetts. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pr nom. WCM_email 18:51, 1 August 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.

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. Sandstein 18:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Grace Ofure

Grace Ofure (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Promotional BLP of a non notable real estate expert and life coach, sourced to puff pieces in the press. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Businesspeople, Women, and Nigeria. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. She is covered in reliable sources like Vanguard, The Nation, The Guardian, Punch, Business Day, and others. Can you mention a single phrase in the article that gives impression of being "promotional"? Insight 3 (talk) 04:48, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete non-notable, routine coverage of an individual, reads like a liknedin post. The entire article seems promotional as she only seems to do routine things in life. Oaktree b (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why would media cover a "non-notable" person's "routine" life? Insight 3 (talk) 02:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because she paid them to? Mccapra (talk) 07:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do we prove that? The cited articles are not press releases, neither they are bylined as "Featured post", "Editor" or "Agency report" to be suspected of being sponsored content. Insight 3 (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

bums in seats/eyes on a page. They cover what will generate ad revenue, not really what's notable. Oaktree b (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

that's what "Human Interest" stories are and news sources are more interested in getting clicks for an article than on notability. They're trying to make money, we aren't. Oaktree b (talk) 20:23, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have cleaned up the article for any possible promotional tone. Removed unreliable sources, Bellanaija and others, per
  WP:NGRS. Plz revisit the article. Insight 3 (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. With significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, the subject passes
  WP:NBASIC. The guideline also says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability". I have added 2 more references. Insight 3 (talk) 04:55, 24 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  WP:ANYBIO
  . It clearly says people should have done one of the following:
• The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times
• The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field
• The person has an entry in a country's standard national biographical dictionary (e.g. the Dictionary of National Biography

Its not WP:ANYBIO, but

WP:NBASIC that applies here for notability. The subject has non-trivial coverage in multiple sources. Insight 3 (talk) 03:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looking for a more in-depth analysis of sources added to the article
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 18:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per @Oaktree b‘s rationales. Bgsu98 (talk) 18:28, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Why have you placed your vote here, ignoring all the discussion below? Much of Oaktree's "rationales" are presented down there. Insight 3 (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don’t know why Wikipedia placed my comment where it did. I just clicked on “Reply” and typed. 🤷‍♂️ Bgsu98 (talk) 01:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment even after the clean up, I'm trying to understand what she founded or why it's notable. Beyond simply stating facts, there is nothing to show that's she's much different than anyone else with a business career would be. Selling real estate is not notable and very routine, the Lifecard company thing doesn't tell me what it does or why it's notable. It could be a Fortune 500 company or it could be an e-commerce thing she's trying to launch. It appears she trains other real estate salespeople. That's usually a requirement to get a sales license for real estate, at least in my corner of the world. I'm not seeing notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Our personal opinions and likes/dislikes don't matter here. Wikipedia is all about significant media coverage and the reliability of cited sources and that is what she has, making her different from other businesspersons. The real questions to be discussed here are whether:

  1) the cited sources give significant coverage, i.e., talk mainly about her or just passing mentions?

  2) the cited sources when combined make a case for notability or not?

  3) the cited sources are independent of her? or they are press releases or sponsored content?

  It would be beneficial if you could analyze the sources in this way, otherwise you have already voted "delete" above. Insight 3 (talk) 03:45, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So, NO for all above. Oaktree b (talk) 01:49, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. 3 new references have been added to the article:

1. Vanguard Nigeria
2. The Sun [10]
3. CED Magazine

• Comment these three are more of the same churnalism. The first two are puff pieces about her book launch. They contain lengthy paragraphs of quotation from her, not in depth coverage of her. The third (CED magazine) isn’t a piece of original journalism at all and says “source: Business Day”. Mccapra (talk) 05:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I would ask again, "How do we prove that its churnalism? The cited articles are not press releases, neither they are bylined as "Featured post", "Editor" or "Agency report" to be suspected of being sponsored content (see

  WP:NGRS

  )"? And its not unusual for news features to quote subject's own words, this doesn't simply depreciate the source. We just don't take the info described inside the quotation marks.

  For the third reference, the source "Business Day" itself is reliable, but is not available online. Insight 3 (talk) 06:17, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  So we remove the quotes and we have three pieces confirming she wrote a book, with nothing of substance. Still nothing notable for our purposes. Of note, the Sun piece is tagged as "advertisement". The third source is written by Grace, the source of the article here. Have you even read what we require for sources? These are not acceptable. Oaktree b (talk) 17:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Advertisement tag in The Sun?? Not that I can see. The CED Mag's page has tagged "Grace Ofure Ibhakhomu", the article is not written by her. Otherwise, how could she write about herself in "third person"?

  Also in a BLP, not all cited sources are supposed to be covering subject's whole life and career from A to Z. A biography is based on the info taken from multiple sources. The first two sources are about her new books and they are cited in the "book section" of the article. They indicate the author is notable enough to be covered along with the news of her new books in national newspapers. Insight 3 (talk) 03:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mccapra... I'm waiting for your response. Insight 3 (talk) 03:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Hi I agree I don’t see where the piece in the Sun is tagged as an advertisement. Also the CED piece is tagged with GO’s name as you say, not attributed to her. So I agree that neither source has the shortcomings that Oaktree b suggests. Nevertheless these are classic pieces of churnalism. The ‘journalist’ basically gives the subject free rein to tell the world how marvellous they are, or takes a piece authored by the subject or their PR team and slightly reworks it to make it look like they interviewed them. These pieces are the opposite of in depth coverage and this kind of fawning profile is never accepted on Wikipedia as indicating notability. Mccapra (talk) 06:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  It might have been an advertisement for the pop up box that wouldn't load to be fair. I'm still not sure the second source doesn't count as churnalism, but I digress. Oaktree b (talk) 10:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Mccapra Thanks but I was looking for your response to my above reply to your comment, not to Oaktree b's assessment. Anyway, I want to conclude it now:

  1) Do you agree now that the cited sources are not "sponsored" or "paid" stuff as you suspected earlier? If yes, then it means you agree the sources are independent.

  2) I think you have no issue with the reliability of the cited sources per

  WP:NGRS

  , right?

  3) The sources mainly and directly talk about the subject and 14 sources together make a case for notability per

  WP:NBASIC

  (as it says:"If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability"), so the coverage is significant, isn't it?

  4) Regarding your charge of churnalism, I would say the

  WP:GNG doesn't say anything about the "quality of journalism" and rightly so, because differentiating between journalism and churnalism can often be very subjective thing. Though I disagree that all the cited references in the article are works of churnalism, but even if we assume you are right, then most of Nigerian sources are like this. For example, consider Folorunso Alakija, the richest Nigerian businesswoman. She is lucky that she also has media coverage in some Western sources (like Times, Forbes, etc), but when it comes to Nigerian sources, just see the "churnalism" in this reference: Vanguard

  And the "puff piece" here: The Nation

  Now take another top Nigerian businesswoman Stella Chinyelu Okoli. She relies mostly on Nigerian sources for her notability and by your standards the cited articles are no better than Grace Ofure. Just have a look at 2 of them:

  Vanguard, a classic puff piece (as you say)

  This Day

  I'm not suggesting at all that these bios should be removed from Wikipedia and I am quite aware of that two wrongs don't make a right. I am just making the point this is how journalism usually works in most parts of the globe (including Nigeria) and the notable subjects should not pay the price for poor journalism. Insight 3 (talk) 11:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the point to remember is that if these were published anywhere else, she would not at all be notable. I don't think we can give a pass for poor journalism. Founding a company isn't notable, teaching a class for real estate agents isn't notable. It's all rather routine stuff she's doing. Same as anyone else in her position would do. Oaktree b (talk) 14:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  The CED piece lists her as "visionary business leader and iconic force in the global real estate market". Puffery, hence churnalism. Oaktree b (talk) 14:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping but I don’t think I have anything more to add and haven’t changed my view. Articles with this quality of referencing get deleted all the time and I’m just not seeing what would get this subject over the bar. Mccapra (talk) 20:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. I guess we are done here then. Insight 3 (talk) 02:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. To sum up the discussion from my side:

1. I asked it twice, "how can the sources be suspected as "sponsored" or "paid" content, when they are not press releases, neither they are bylined as "Featured post", "Editor" or "Agency report" to be suspected of being sponsored content (per
   WP:NGRS
   )?", the nominator and others never directly responded to it. This is a critical inquiry because if this is not the case, then clearly the sources are independent of the subject.
2. Even when I broke everything into points for them, they repeated just 2 words "puff pieces" and "churnalism" again and again without mentioning any Wiki policy to back and clarifying that how the "assumed churnalism" is fault of the subject if the cited sources are independent.

Now I leave it up to the community and the admins. Thanks everyone. Insight 3 (talk) 03:30, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's more the fact that both use flowery language as I highlighted above. For an iconic force in the global real estate market, she's unknown outside of her home country, which tells me it's not notable and "puffing up" her stature. Oaktree b (talk) 15:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Just an update. One more recent reference regarding her book launch has appeared:

Business Day ... Needless to say though, The

That's a very brief mention of a book launch, reliable yes, trivial mention, yes. Not terribly useful. Oaktree b (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or draftify due to
  WP:NOTPROMO. MrsSnoozyTurtle 01:51, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Ok then, I request to draftify the article. I will resubmit it whenever I find more detailed press coverage for the subject. Insight 3 (talk) 05:09, 6 August 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.

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 redirect to Anathallo#EPs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hymns (EP)

Hymns (EP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Appears to fail

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Music and Michigan. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless (talk) 18:11, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  WP:NALBUM. AiGenly (talk) 20:28, 29 July 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.

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 00:15, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ornella Sathoud

Ornella Sathoud (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, and Ghana. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 18:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sportsfan 1234, I am not sure you did a thorough search about the subject before nominating the article for deletion. The article is still being improved, however a thorough search would have helped in avoiding this.

[11], [12],[13], [14], [15], [16], [17],[18],[19]

Go through the sources provided. Thank you. Ampimd (talk) 18:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep seems to be significant coverage in reliable sources per Ampimd Mujinga (talk) 21:48, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:30, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Significant coverage of the subject appears in multiple reliable third-party sources. JTtheOG (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article meets
  WP:GNG based on some (but not all) of the sources above. - Aoidh (talk) 16:14, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per sources by Ampimd passes
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:22, 5 August 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.

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.

List of people considered polymaths

List of people considered polymaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

There isn't widespread agreement as to what qualifies someone as a polymath, so inclusion guidelines are open to interpretation, and the topic of the list may thus be unencyclopedic (failing

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 16:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I remember this discussion from years ago. It was had in more than one place. Many people do more than one thing, no need to have a list for them. Dream Focus 01:18, 31 July 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.

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.

Jørgen Nielsen (footballer, born 1923) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination

)

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

Violates the general criteria of

Previously nominated in a group nomination which was closed as no consensus on procedural grounds. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. BilledMammal (talk) 05:18, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Football and Denmark. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Here are articles about his stint at Dundee F.C.: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/search/results/1900-01-01/1949-12-31?basicsearch=%22jørgen%20nielsen%22%20dundee&phrasesearch=jørgen%20nielsen&somesearch=dundee&exactsearch=false&retrievecountrycounts=false Robby.is.on (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Per @
  WP:BEFORE has not ben done, as Jorgen Nielsen having been a top flight player and Denmark International during the 1940s-50s, this is about offline sources. Article needs improvement, not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 18:20, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Robby. GiantSnowman 18:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The newspaper clippings are only passing mentions of transactions, and one of them just describes Nielsen as "tall and dark." This sort of coverage does not pass the
  WP:GNG bar. Kges1901 (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@

WP:BEFORE was not done. Article needs improvement but definitely not deletion. Thanks, Das osmnezz (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

When the article is under 500 words, I have found that the likelihood that there is enough coverage for an article is pretty low, and from what I can see of the articles they seem to fit the pattern of being relatively passing routine mentions. Because Jørgen Nielsen is a common name in Denmark, we can't be certain that newspaper articles are actually about him, and many of them are from outside of the time period that he was actively playing during. making it unlikely that they are actually about him. Using more restrictive searches in the newspaper database such as this significantly reduces the number of hits, which are mostly not from the right period. Even using booleans in newspaper database searches is not foolproof because they will still pick up on unconnected usages of words in unrelated articles. Kges1901 (talk) 12:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Here's more from Danish newspapers: https://www2.statsbiblioteket.dk/mediestream/search/Jørgen%20Nielsen%20dundee Unfortunately, the article content is not accessible to me. Robby.is.on (talk) 00:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps), if no-one finds enough SIGCOV to keep. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Robby. Worst case, redirect per Struway2 if nothing else can found on him, per
  WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:18, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The refs are woeful and it seems to be a case of counting quantity over measuring quality of sources. There is no coverage here. scope_creep^Talk 10:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not think the keep arguers have actually distinguished articles on this person from others, and I do not see clear arguments that any of these articles provide the in depth, significant coverage that is called for by GNG. Not every person who was named dropped in newspapers briefly because of their athletic activities is notable, and I see no presentation or argument that any of the name drops constitute anything more significant than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Amateur footballer with no significant coverage. Alternatively redirect to
  List of Denmark international footballers (1–24 caps) per Struway2. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 20:30, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The newspaper articles were found. Pre-internet player,
  WP:SPORTSCRIT articles involving soccer. Lightburst (talk) 04:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, pre-internet so we need to understand that sourcing is going to be different. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The existence of search results does not contribute toward notability, and at least a couple of the "keep" !votes are meaningless word salads; however, nobody seems to have analyzed the Danish sources in detail either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 16:19, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as above, as while it isn't unreasonable to imagine offline sources do exist in Danish, we can't just
  assume they do and keep on that basis alone. The BNA search results don't assert notability, even from the little that can be retrieved from the free search preview and his time in the UK seemed very limited, so unlikely to much in British media. Redirecting seems the best compromise. Bungle ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or redirect, although the title is not a search term anyone would ever use... Anyway, there is NO presumption of notability or SIGCOV afforded to footballers. You cannot justify a presumption of SIGCOV based on someone having played football at a "high level" because that exact justification has been deprecated. Therefore, claims that sources exist in an inaccessible database where all we get is hits on a very common name must be rejected. Additionally, the lack of even a single cited SIGCOV source means this article fails the requirements for sportsperson articles and would need exceptionally compelling IAR arguments to be retained. JoelleJay (talk) 03:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete,
  WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a valid rationale for keeping an article, and no evidence has been provided that there is sufficient coverage to demonstrate notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:15, 2 August 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.

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 09:59, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shariz Ahmad

Shariz Ahmad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Netherlands. –dlthewave ☎ 16:07, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per [20], [21] and [22], along with the fact he's currently playing international cricket for the Netherlands. At worst, restore the article's redirect. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Only the first of those three sources contributes anything towards GNG (and even then it's minimal); the second is a club announcement (so not independent), and the third is a match report with nothing more than passing mentions (so not significant coverage). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He did play ODI against West Indies cricket team and also appeared in 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Global Qualifier B. By the looks of it, he might be selected for 2022 ICC Men's T20 World Cup in future. Also agree with Lugnuts above. Human (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Since the

  WP:GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  @Wjemather: I was expecting this response from you. Anyways a redirect should be a logical alternative as I am confident the player will get an article in future. Human (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Given the sorts of coverage that Lugnuts has found above, as well as the mention at the article linked from his CricInfo profile and so on, I think keeping is probably justified in this case.
  WP:BASIC provides for the sorts of coverage from those sorts of sources to be applied to articles about people - the coverage is clearly beyond simple trivial match reports in this case. I wonder if there are any other transliterations of his name by the way? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Lugnuts and Human. StAnselm (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There's GNG coverage on this one as Lugnuts has found. There's a suitable redirect again anyway if needs be, but I think there's going to be enough here anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  WP:WHYN. We need to demonstrate coverage exists now, and only one of the sources found contains significant coverage from an independent source, but it is minimal; the other sources are either primary, not independent, or coverage is trivial, which per BASIC "do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. International cricketers really ought to be off limits for AfD's for full member nations and teams outside of those who play in the Cricket World Cup Super League. StickyWicket (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Of course, notability guidelines that supported this view were rejected by the community and removed from NSPORT earlier this year. Better sources are required than those that have been presented so far. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable enough. DIVINE (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: lots of coverage now as he entrenches himself into the Dutch team.[23] StAnselm (talk) 22:49, 4 August 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.

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 redirect to List of United States ODI cricketers. I have to discount the "keep" opinions because they mostly do not address what community consensus has established every biography needs: substantial coverage in reliable sources. And those that do cite sources do not (or unconvincingly) address the concerns raised about these sources that they are not substantial coverage. I'm also discounting the input by Lugnuts because they have since been banned. Sandstein 19:01, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Saiteja Mukkamalla

Saiteja Mukkamalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage.

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and United States of America. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. He has played at least one senior ODI, the highest form of one-day cricket, which satisfies
  WP:CRIC Bs1jac (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  WP:GNG must be met, and none of the current sources in the article contribute to demonstrating that. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• There are a lot of mentions in press reports. Once they start to call him things like "teenage prodigy" it makes me wonder if there might be enough here to suggest that keeping the article wouldn't be the worst thing in the world. There's evidence through those that he is also referred to Sai Mukkamalla, Sai Teja Mukkamalla and Sai Reddy Mukkamalla. We've had this issue with transliterations several times recently which is all a bit unfortunate. In particular, using Sai Teja adds a number of other mentions to those we already get. Hmmm... Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you could share 3-4 of the SIGCOV sources you've found, you'd have a good argument for keeping the article. –dlthewave ☎ 19:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep?. As BST said there should be enough SIGCOV if the player actually played ODI unlike T20Is as not ICC member gets to play them. However I've noticed this discrepancy between what's written in
  WP:CRIN. Help in improving articles are expected instead of just blatantly deleting everything. Human (talk) 19:29, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep/Redirect to
  WP:ATD until a bit more turns up, which I believe it will. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:58, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
  ]