Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subodh Saxena

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. Apart from the nominator no-one has given any reason to delete. It is reasonable to expect that that with many appearances he has coverage in other languages. (non-admin closure) CreativeNorth (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC) (non-admin closure) CreativeNorth (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Subodh Saxena (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 ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has played 65 matches, and captained the side. There's a few things in a search but the timing of his career suggests most of the coverage would be offline and in Indian sources. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:40, 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) 18:59, 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) 07:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Played in 65 F/C games in a career that spanned two decades. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 65 FC games, nearly 3000 FC runs, 4 FC centuries. Will be tons (pun intended) of coverage if somebody looks for it. DevaCat1 (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments at Dinkar Deshpande below. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:00, 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 ☎ 15:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to this user: this doesn't need posting on every AFD you started. Admins will be aware of it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep bad faith nomination, the onus is on the nominator to prove that they don't meet WP:GNG. Google search is not sufficient for a pre-internet cricketer from a country where English isn't the first language. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:08, 13 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.