Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atsuoko Suda

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. Consensus is there that this subject meets the relevant standard. ESPNCricinfo is sufficient as a source. bd2412 T 03:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Atsuoko Suda

Atsuoko Suda (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 to meet WP:SPORTBASIC  M A A Z   T A L K  13:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This cricketer has played in the 2013 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier which is an international women's cricket tournament. So that's why I created this article. If you wish to delete this article I accept it. Thanks in advance. Abishe (talk) 14:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:08, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Definitely passes WP:NCRIC. ^{Babymissfortune} 14:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. WP:NCRIC should be understood in relation to or after basic guidelines are met. Its like reading one or two points from for example WP:POLITICIAN to add a politician on Wikipedia, while neglecting first WP:GNG.  M A A Z   T A L K  14:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete The sourcing entirely fails the general notability guidelines. It is time to scrap the notability guidelines on cricket that are way too broad.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:51, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, meets WP:N, "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Harrias ^talk 10:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Subject-specific guideline in WP:ATHLETE, emphasizes foremost upon WP:SPORTBASIC. WP:NCRIC should be considered after basic criteria is met.  M A A Z   T A L K  11:12, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly passes WP:NCRIC. If you feel those notability guidelines are too broad, discuss it in the appropriate place, which isn't here. Smartyllama (talk) 17:39, 16 January 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.