- 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 merge to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers. I think there's a reasonable consensus for the merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Manu Bhardwaj (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG as it contains only one primary source. Can't find any information on this person from a secondary source. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:34, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the cricket project know precisely where to find a second source if need be. However, these sources alone are being subject to much debate elsewhere than this. A single AfD article which can be easily fixed is not the right place to be having hundreds of AfD debates all at the same time. It is not the "single source" debate which is up for question right now. Bobo. 19:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep only because these conversations are being had elsewhere. Carrying out these same conversations in thousands of different AfDs is not the right thing to do. WP:CRIC members, can we work on our merging-related compromises before we go through all of this a thousand more times, then batch them together for potential merges if necessary? Bobo. 20:28, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The business of Wikipedia cannot be put on permanent hold until WP:CRIC chooses to get its act together. You've been debating this for over two weeks now, and this has been an issue for years. (And what the heck, with a new, tighter guideline, there'll be hundreds of AfDs, prods, redirects and mergers anyway.) Indeed, it seems to be hard to compromise on new criteria, but if you'll allow me some unsolicited advice, participants turning their attention to doing so would be far more productive than incessant complaining about how the nasty, nasty deletionists are ruining the project and how can anything possibly be done? Ravenswing 01:37, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sixteen years rather than two weeks. An AfD is not the time or place for a conversation like this. "Complaining"? No. Frustration, yes. I wish these things had been decided upon 11 years ago before I did this. In any case, that wasn't really the context of my argument here. There were two conversations going on at the same time with regard to what we should do when articles met brightline criteria but people wanted to delete anyway - whether standalone lists needed to be created in places where they do not yet exist. Of all places, this is not the place to have this conversation. I stand by my belief that List of X cricketers should exist for all teams anyway. Bobo. 07:33, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete primary sources do not lead to GNG passing. Yes, this will be thousands of articles because we have an absurdly broad notability criteria for cricket, but there is no reason to let proceduralism keep in place articles that clearly fail notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's why we're trying to work out on some kind of merging compromises on WT:CRIC.. It's easy to say "the criteria are too broad", it's harder to suggest new criteria to be adopted. Feel free to add your tuppence worth there if you have better ideas. Bobo. 21:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Context of User:Bobo192's argument here [1], [2], [3]. I am no fan of the sport and don't edit cricket articles, but prima facie, from WP:NCRIC, I think, we can't have standalone stubs like these. So the only options are either delete or merge/redirect. (Closing admin, please discount my comment as a vote of any sort). - hako9 (talk) 22:08, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to List of Himachal Pradesh cricketers would be my preference. We have tow matches played, a name and style of bowling only. In those circumstances I'm not expecting that we'll find anything else about the chap anytime soon - but if we do then it's easy to re-create the article and add the substantial sources. This is along the lines I tend to argue in these circumstances (see the links hako9 provides above). I could live with delete, but a merge/redirect seems a much more effective way to deal with the chance that someone, somewhere in the world finds some substantial source about him. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:55, 8 August 2020 (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.