Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ravi Bhardwaj

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 no consensus. We have a difference of opinion as to whether the available sources are sufficient to pass WP:GNG J04n(talk page) 18:26, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Bhardwaj

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

Fails WP:NBASKETBALL. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Nat965 (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:GNG is obviously demonstrated.The Tribune and Hindustan Times are just two examples of significant coverage.Stephreef (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:GNG with lack of significant coverage from multiple, independent sources. Also does not meet WP:NBASKETBALL. No evidence this article can ever be expanded much. Per WP:WHYN: We require "significant coverage" in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page ...—Bagumba (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:NBASKETBALL but passes WP:GNG per the two sources cited by Stephreef. Smartyllama (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Same reasons as stated by Smartyllama above. TempleM (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the refs are independent and reliable but not providing enough coverage in depth. Szzuk (talk) 07:30, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Szzuk - refs don't quite seem to clear the WP:GNG bar for me. Mdann52 (talk) 10:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Smartyllama. We often have articles about nonnotable people on en.wp whose extensive "references" are passing mentions. This is not one of them. While the 2 articles are brief, they do appear to be reliable sources and are directly about the subject of the article, not passing mentions. Martinp (talk) 14:37, 16 April 2018 (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.