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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

M. Mukherjee

[edit]

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

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

This cricketer fails to meet WP:GNG. This RfC has already confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. I could only find statistical profile on CricketArchive and Cricinfo which can be regarded as trivial coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC. Dee 03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 20:20, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - once again I ask, how are you suddenly finding a bunch of articles seemingly completely out of nowhere when they are all in the same place, and randomly deciding that they offend you? Every single article I've created is in the same place on my old archived user page. Seems a shame that the encyclopedia is being hacked down just for fun and selective censorship. Bobo . 20:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I had listed these articles on my sandbox back in 2017. I just did not have the time or patience to nominate them until now. These articles do not "offend" me but fail the basic notability criteria. Dee 03 20:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Basic notability criteria? WP:N? That's about as basic as you can get. GNG or SNG. Fluffy indistinct guidelines like GNG, used purely to bypass N, only exist for the sake of selective censorship. Bobo . 20:44, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GNG vs SSG has already been discussed in the RfC I have linked above as well as many AfD discussions such as this recent one. Dee 03 20:54, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - and please, if you wish to claim that CA and CI coverage is insufficient, tag every article with just these links - or perhaps even none, including all the Test cricket articles I've noted elsewhere, with AfD notices. Bobo . 20:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, CA and CI statistical coverage is insufficient to establish notability. I would not nominate Test cricketers' articles without doing a thorough WP:BEFORE check which I have done in this case. Dee 03 20:35, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and per consensus established at recent AfDs such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Gamit. These are not biographies, they are thinly disguised score cards, and often we don't even have enough information to unambiguously identify the player. This information would be better presented as lists of cricketers. Reyk _YO! 07:48, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the outcomes of recent AfDs. These are surnames and initials on scorecards with no other biographical information available. Given this we're unlikely to be able to find further information to do more than verify their existence. In all but two cases they are known to have played only one match which reinforces this view. Mehra and A Chowdrey are the exceptions who played 4 (including two miscellaneous) and 3 matches respectively. If that were rather more and I had more biographical information I might be convinced that there were merits for keeping them. Of course, they can always be re-created if sources do become available. My preference would always be for a redirect to a suitable list (along the lines of List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players), but those lists don't really exist for Indian cricket yet and recent AfDs convince me that delete is a more likely outcome in these circumstances. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. with initial and a last name, there is big problem in with verification and these players fail WP:GNG by a mile. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Gamit - no such article should merit a page in Wikipedia. CASSIOPEIA^(talk)
Delete all It is high time we got ride of all these place filler cricketeer articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In line with the agreed deletion of cricketers where no biographical information, beyond their last name, is avaliable. A shame, as I bet some of these guys from the early days of Indian first-class cricket have interesting stories how they got into teams dominated by British colonial officials. StickyWicket (talk) 22:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG. -- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 04:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all articles fail WP:GNG, which trumps WP:NSPORTS of which WP:CRIN forms part. I would have no prejudice against re-creation if new sources come to light. 'Harrias ^talk 09:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:CRIN which states "judge notability by reference to a substantial secondary source that makes clear it is discussing a senior player, team, venue or match in historical rather than statistical terms." All these fail WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 11:07, 18 August 2019 (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.