Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mukesh Sahni (2nd nomination)

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
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

(non-admin closure) KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]

Mukesh Sahni

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Mukesh Sahni (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination
)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No significant coverage to meet NSPORTS or GNG. The previous AfD was closed as Keep based on the likely existence of SIGCOV sources; no sources have been found to exist or been added to the articles. NSPORTS no longer allows presumption of notability and SPORTBASIC explicitly requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. Although one source was provided at the previous AfD, it does not meet SIGCOV for Sahni as it is an interview with him about a game, not independent coverage of the man himself. –dlthewave ☎ 15:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG which you linked says "Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." This article fails the proof of SIGCOG requirement as well as
WP:SPORTBASIC #5. –dlthewave ☎ 19:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
Is there? I've never heard that before, and it doesn't seem to fit with
WP:SIGCOV: " Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." StAnselm (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
BASIC makes such a distinction. JoelleJay (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BASIC you mean? As far as I can tell from reading it several times no distinction is made between trivial, non-trivial and significant coverage. A distinction is made between trivial and non-trivial, because under BASIC non-trivial sources may contribute to passing notability if several are combined. But given that it refers to a 200 page book as being non-trivial I don't think it makes a distinction between non-trivial and significant coverage really. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
]
If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not usually sufficient to establish notability This suggests there may be non-trivial sources that are nevertheless not substantial enough to provide the in-depth coverage needed for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:46, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, looks like a choice between Keep and Redirect right now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:20, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • This won't necessarily help much, as I'm in the same camp as RF22 again here: this is either a weakish keep, based on the entirely reasonable assumption that there will be way more offline sources available, many of them not written in English, or I would be relaxed about a redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers with a note being added to the entry there. From the pov of attempting to deal with systematic bias I'd probably tend slightly more towards keep than redirect I suppose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:35, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the requirement for a source of SIGCOV? I think the 5-sentence blurb above in the context of his son would really be stretching it. JoelleJay (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm cool with the assumption BASIC would, if we could access the offline sources that almost certainly exist, allow us to pull sources together to have enough to demonstrate notability. I'm also, as I say, perfectly happy with a redirect, but a general feeling that there seem to be, for some reason, an awful lot of Indian subcontinent AfDs regarding cricketers makes me worry about the trend towards increasing whiteness in our coverage, so I'd be happy with a bold keep as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's a big "could"; the assumption that SIGCCOV sources exist for players who participated at a certain level has been rejected by the community. Perhaps draftification would be a good alternative to give folks an opportunity to build an article that demonstrates notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:09, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit skeptical of the "rejected by the community" language. In particular, with FC cricketers, the long-recognised concern was with those who had played a handful of matches - I'm not sure the assumption that SIGCCOV sources exist for players who have played 44 matches has been rejected by the community. StAnselm (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Drafting would be a terrible idea - we all know that this is just delete the page in six months time. Redirection, as indicated by several editors, would be much more in line with consensus on cricket articles going back to at least 2018, preserves the page history and attribution and is more efficient. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:19, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
So how about the cricket project maintain a list of draftified pages to work on, and someone can make a single edit every six months to prevent G13. If no one has any interest in actually bringing the subject up to the bare minimum standards in the near future, I don't see why it should remain in mainspace on the (rejected) presumption that SIGCOV exists. JoelleJay (talk) 01:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have added the two ESPN articles - not sure why they weren't in before. And I think they constitute significant coverage - they are both analyses of how he was coaching. StAnselm (talk) 02:36, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
How odd that they weren't added. They would help me trend towards a keep per my comment above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, they don't come up as "news". I suspect we all rely far too much on Google in our searches. StAnselm (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of those has independent SIGCOV of Sahni, since the only content "on" him is just his own quotes. JoelleJay (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect - to
    WP:NSPORT mentioned above only discusses the likelihood of sources existing, it says nothing about being notable through playing at certain levels and makes it clear that significant coverage is still needed, which this article does not have. - Aoidh (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Modussiccandi (talk) 11:45, 15 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mukesh_Sahni_(2nd_nomination)&oldid=1106430747"