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. Consensus is that he does not meet the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 10:32, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Punoo[edit]

Per comments at the DRV. Player has played international youth-level cricket, which has earned a smattering of minor mentions in RS, but has not established notability. Has yet to play cricket at first-class or List A level, or adult international level - which are our normal guidelines for notability. Dweller (talk) 19:17, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —GP Pande 19:39, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't know enough about the guidelines for inclusion in this area but WP:ATHLETE states that the highest level of amateur competitions is considered notable, including World Championships. Does the 2006 U/19 Cricket World Cup not class as such a competiton? Considering he was the captain of the team also suggests notability should the previous point apply. I'll leave it to other more knowledgable AfDers to discuss this one further. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 21:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would if that was the highest level of amateur competition - cricket is played on an amateur basis at higher levels than youth international. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:30, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For example the USA adult cricket team (at international level) --Dweller (talk) 21:40, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I just wasn't sure whether all World Championships qualified under that criteria. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 22:14, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Captaining a national side at youth level is not really enough to warrant notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see age discrimination. What am I missing here? - Mgm|^(talk) 23:10, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned above, a higher level of amateur play. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:18, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is not a "mere mention", but rather an article focusing on this person. There are plenty of other sources here. I appreciate that he does not meet the "normal guidelines", but in my opinion he meets WP:BIO. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:21, 29 December 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not meet WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN, which have long been discussed. For my money, doesn't meet notability for general articles either.—MDCollins 23:21, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, US is not a proper international team, what's more this is a youth player. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 03:22, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The USA are indeed a proper international team, indeed they were one of the first two international teams, but that's not why this person isn't notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A reading of the Cricket and International structure of cricket articles is most enlightening here, and since the U.S. is not a Test-playing country; similarly, the article's subject is known for playing in youth cricket competition in/for the U.S. So he did not participate in the highest level of cricket in the U.S., and even if he did, he did not participate on the Test level, the highest for cricket. B.Wind (talk) 03:44, 3 January 2009 (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.