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. There is consensus to delete: guidelines are now clear that sportspeople need sources rather than only match participation for an article. One "keep" does not address this and the other is by a now-banned editor, which I discount.

There's no consensus for a redirect (which would seem like a sensible ATD to me). Whether to create a redirect after deletion is therefore up to editors. Sandstein 12:16, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dinkar Deshpande[edit]

Dinkar Deshpande (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)

Article is sourced only to a single database, and no significant coverage has been found even after going through AfD a year ago. Fails SPORTBASIC which requires at least one SIGCOV source to be cited in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 12:57, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinkar Deshpande. The fact that sports notability criteria have changed does not affect the notability of this cricketer. Note that per WP:NEXIST sources do not need to be present in the article. StAnselm (talk) 15:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSCRIT #5. Sources don't need to be present in the article but they do need to exist; I note that this is the second time this article has been nominated for deletion, and in the year since the previous discussion no one has been able to find suitable sources, which suggests there are no such sources. BilledMammal (talk) 16:20, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets the updated criteria in the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going below you find it covers cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level. This is the second time this article has been nominated at AfD, with the nom following a previous pattern of re-nominating similar articles (one, two, three). When they were not satisfied when all three of those were kept, the nom sent all three to DRV. All three of those were all closed as endorse (IE keep). At worst, redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R#KEEP and WP:CHEAP. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. While it's true that WP:NCRICKET mentions playing at the highest level, it says nothing about that making a subject notable, or that playing at the highest level meets some requirement. What it says is "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." So even the guideline being cited to support keeping the article doesn't actually support keeping the article. Since there is no further proof of sufficient coverage, then per WP:NCRICKET we must assume there is no notability. This article doesn't even have the presumption of notability, let alone established, demonstrated notability that articles on Wikipedia must have. WP:NEXIST does say that sources don't need to be in the article, but the sources do need to exist. There's been more than sufficient opportunity to present evidence of such sources, and none have materialized. For my part I have searched and came up empty. I also looked at the three other similar nominations for deletion before making this comment. Given that they are functionally identical my comment for all four will be the same (which seems to be the theme here with all the comments). - Aoidh (talk) 04:07, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete While I believe that it is likely that sourcing that passes GNG probably exists on this player, none has been forthcoming in the year since the previous AfD, with the change in guidelines both the NCRIC and NSPORTS also. I'd suggest redirect, but there's not really a suitable one here given he played for a number of teams. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:57, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Aoidh. No SIGCOV sources (or even just one source) have been found in the last year, and there is nothing to suggest they exist. JoelleJay (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers. Per community consensus, a GNG-passing source must exist for sportspersons to be considered notable. I see no evidence that this is met and per WP:CONLEVEL consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. Since the individual fails WP:GNG, there is no policy-based reason for keeping the article. The individual's name appears on the list that is my proposed redirect target (and the list's selection criteria would include him) and ESPN CricInfo is reliable enough to establish his existence IMO, so I see a redirect as proper here. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 20:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if sources exist, the article will be recreated separately from a database listing. —VersaceSpace 🌃 01:56, 8 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.