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. The dominant view is that WP:GNG is not met, which was considered the most important to cause deletion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harshad Patel[edit]

Harshad Patel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:55, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:57, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete 1 FC and 13 LA matches, one of which was for a county side (albeit against a Uni side). There is one GNG article in the article itself, but more is needed for a GNG pass. Unless there's anything in Wisden I'm at weak delete atm. No suitable redirect as played for multiple different teams with no clear prominent team. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:02, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Found this BBC article on him, and this one. In fact, lots of BBC coverage I found on him. Multiple pieces in The Guardian about him, covered in The Independent, was interviewed by The Times, was discussed in an obituary by the source, The Telegraph has covered his sports performances plus interviewed him, Coverage of him on the Birmingham Mail, plus an interview by RNZ, mention in Stourbridge News 👨x🐱 (talk) 21:06, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are a couple of decent sources there, but seriously, most of these links are very trivial passing mentions in routine sports reporting (i.e. not about him at all), two are merely search/related article results, and it seems clear that the NZ one is a different person ([1]). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:36, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, this one's another "there's sources" but none of the sources are very good. Interestingly the best ones come from his short stint as the chair of the county board, but I don't see clear notability of him as a cricketer. SportingFlyer T·C 11:57, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Excuse me? "Trivial passing mentions"? "Not very good"? He is heavily interviewed and his performances are discussed in thee these sources. How are The Guardian, The Times, The Telegraph, RNZ, and BBC not good sources? I don't think you read the sources carefully enough. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Using The Guardian as an example, he's barely mentioned over the course of two sentences. BBC is one sentence and three sentences, respectively; many of the hits are articles where he's just barely mentioned. The RNZ article is almost certainly about a different person, possibly a relative, as noted by Wjemather. Mere mentions don't necessarily equal notability, significant coverage is required. SportingFlyer T·C 16:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You are not reading the sources carefully. There's entire friggin interviews with him with the Telegraph, The Times and RNZ which I provided. Those aren't brief mentions. If you want to talk about BBC sources, this was a source where's he interviewed for multiple sentences. Far from a passing mention. Also another BBC source states that he was "one of the starring acts of Herefordshire's C&G Trophy giant killing act against Middlesex, who was sacked earlier this month". Even if it is for a couple for sentences, a significant claim is being made here that makes this far more than a passing mention. One of the Guardian examples I provided stated, "Four overs and 23 runs later, Harshad Patel and Nathan Round - more used to opening together for Old Hill in the Birmingham League - had manufactured the perfect start. It did not last as Patel, employed by the Worcestershire CCC as a development officer, fell lbw to Andy Bichel." This is more than just a mention. It highlights the player giving a "perfect start" to the round that affects the team's performance. That's not a passing mention. These are just examples to indicate you're not even trying to research what coverage this topic has gotten. 👨x🐱 (talk) 17:02, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  You keep referencing things which are only mere mentions/a couple sentences long (including the BBC interviews, the Telegraph/Times are paywalled for me but they appear to be sports roundups), or the RNZ article, which both myself and Wjemather have pointed out are probably about a different person. This isn't a clear delete, but it's still by no means a clear keep just because there's lots of brief mentions in sources. SportingFlyer T·C 18:14, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The Times article it is not an interview with Patel – it has a very brief quote by Herefordshire captain Chris Boroughs that mentions Patel in passing. And again, the RNZ article is about an entirely different person, who hails from from Gujarat, India and has lived in New Zealand for nearly 40 years. The BBC and Guardian reports are simply not significant coverage; despite offering very small snippets of information, they are routine sports coverage that mention him in passing. However, The Telegraph piece (not the bulletin link you keep posting) is substantial and has been added to the article here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per the above and a long-running career across county cricket. There is enough coverage to satisfy GNG and enough matches to pass CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 09:59, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the coverage found and the matches played. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:44, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Only one the references described about a sufficient indepeth to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and that is the New Zealand coverage. The rest are passing mentions. How can you they are coverage when they are one or two sentence per article. They are rank. The Telegraph linka above is decent. Its not a lot. scope_creep^Talk 18:03, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Scope creep: As discussed above, the New Zealand coverage is of a different person with the same name. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, thanks for that @Wjemather: I need to be more careful in the future. I'd say that is bit sloppy practice. scope_creep^Talk 18:15, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete On the whole, I don't think the coverage of him quite rises to the level of WP:GNG. The New Zealand articles are pretty clearly about a different person with the same name. SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Passing mentions are not sufficient for GNG, which requires in-depth coverage in multiple articles. JoelleJay (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As per SportingFlyer. MrsSnoozyTurtle 09:51, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wont pass WP:ORGDEPTHWP:SPORTCRIT Cinadon36 05:18, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cinadon36: Doesn't have to – this is a person, not an organization. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Wjemather: Correct, but the philosophy is the same. There has to be in depth coverage be it an organization, a person, a mountain, a phenomenon or whatever. Cinadon36 09:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Cinadon36: I suggest you reference a relevant guideline, they are not all the same. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, done. Cinadon36 09:32, 19 May 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.