Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeeva Rao

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 keep. There is a clear consensus here that the subject is notable under the relevant guidelines. Although nom's argument regarding GNG vs. SNG is noted, consensus here is clear that the subject is indeed likely to have enough coverage to pass GNG, and thus should be kept. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjeeva Rao (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, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Played 65 matches in his career which makes me believe there will be coverage both offline and in Indian sources. Also became an umpire following his playing career in all formats and as a reserve umpire for international cricket. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per Rugbyfan22. The nominator needs to realise that nominating cricketers with this many appearances is unreasonable and will get people's backs up. We're not talking about one or two matches here, but a fairly significant number for which coverage of some sort will exist, be it online or offline in Hindi language resources. StickyWicket (talk) 19:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is reasonable to expect coverage because cricketers with that many first-class matches usually pass WP:GNG. There is no urgency for expansion. Störm (talk) 07:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Played in 55 F/C games in a career that spanned more than 15 years. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For the reasons cited by various parties above. I'm not sure this isn't a (bad) joke. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to Closer: Please consider WP:NSPORTS, which is meant to help evaluate whether or not a subject is likely to have enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Playing a certain number of games does not establish notability, and no coverage has been found aside from an ESPN CricInfo database entry. –dlthewave ☎ 15:06, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable cricketer. Riteboke (talk) 08:10, 14 April 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.