Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kishore Mahato (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers. This discussion has established quite clearly that of the sources found thus far, only one secondary source is both reliable and substantive. My reading of NSPORTS and NCRIC is that for a player, even an international player, of a non-test-playing nation, a single source is not sufficient for notability, and so the argument to keep isn't supported by the provided evidence. I do not see an argument supporting outright deletion, and so salting is moot; however, we could consider fully protecting the redirect if it becomes necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kishore Mahato

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Nepal. –dlthewave ☎ 15:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some mentions, but I'm not sure they really combine to provide a more in-depth detailing of the subject. Getting there, but I'm not sure they're there yet. In which case we'd be better off reinstating the redirect for now and seeing what else can be found - the basis for a better article is here and it would be annoying at best to have to do the work again when it's already been done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, actually WP:GNG requires "multiple" sigcov, so at least two, and GNG trumps everything. This is the 3rd time it's been put into main space, we are on the verge of needing it WP:SALTed. The last AFD made it pretty clear it should have gone to review before recreating, then draftifying, then pushing back into mainspace. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dennis Brown:, this is one of several articles that were created as a redirect by one editor and expanded to a stub shortly thereafter. I wonder if this has the effect (intentional or not) of skirting our review processes, since a redirect would receive less scrutiny than a stub. –dlthewave ☎ 19:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, it's hard to always know what someone's motivations are. Salting would make it moot. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:04, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers or weak keep~~ Keep. There seems to be a contradiction between WP:CRIN and WP:NCRIC, with the former saying something and the later summarising something different. Then the added WP:NSPORTS and WP:GNG makes it complicated. Completely deleting this doesn't right. Human (talk) 20:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIN is an essay, which doesn't mean it has no value, it's just not vetted as rigorous as policy and can't be used as a policy based rationale. WP:GNG is the authority for all other sub policy/essay/etc, ie: "multiple reliable sources with significant coverage". That said, I don't have an issue with a delete and redirect, but I would definitely want it full protected (salted) if it went that way. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note-- The user above is the person who copy pasted this in the first place. This circumvented the AfC process Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:13, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Deepfriedokra: The user above? Does me and DIVINE look like the same person? I removed the redirect and filled the article using my own words. This has nothing to do with any copy paste from the draft you mentioned below. Human (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those are common sources which can be easily found on google, hence you've not copied or pasted anything here. DIVINE (talk) 17:13, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

delete. This is a copy-paste from Draft:Kishore Mahato. It had been created and then moved to draft space originally as not ready for main space.Deepfriedokra (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comparing the draft and article at the time of its creation by Simplehuman, I don't think this one is a copy-paste job. –dlthewave ☎ 18:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]~~

~~That is not a copy paste from a draft, as I raised that question on the User:Primefac talk page before and he has already clarified it. DIVINE (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2022 (UTC)~~ [reply]

~~+What Dennis Brown has said. much better reasoning than I can express. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)~~[reply]

struck per Blue square thing and others-- Deepfriedokra (talk) 13:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers There's not enough here for a GNG pass, but there is a clear redirect per WP:ATD. Probably should have been BOLDy redirected in the first place, but there does seem to be a bit of confusion. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak redirect. He has taken a five wicket haul, which I would imagine in cricket mad Nepal received widespread coverage. With regard to NCRIC, it should be all ODI cricketers are notable given it is a very exclusive level of the sport – considering only 28 teams out of the 106 members of the ICC have ever played at that level. It is the highest international level of the game and considerably above 'international' matches with List A status, or 'international' one-day matches with no status. StickyWicket (talk) 23:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KEEP. He is a national cricket player of Nepal and have already represented a number of matches in international arena. There are plenty of local sources available. I have added few. Please check. The confusing content of the article has also been reworded. I suggest a person competent in cricket vocabulary do a through copy edit. There is no need to keep it in Draft either. It is suitable to be published. Best!nirmal (talk) 13:24, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I had already added the notable reliable sources before too, as they only regard English sources as WP: RS, and should try to translate Nepalese sources too. Kishore is notable enough to be here being a national ODI and T20 Player. DIVINE (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
References do not have to be in English WP:GNG "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." But they do need to "Significant coverage" not minor mentions. Jeepday (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. User:Nirmaljoshi has added sources to the article. St Anselm (talk) 15:33, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable National cricket player and support Nirmal's comment above. DIVINE (talk) 17:14, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the notability appears to be there, being an international competitor. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers. Only one of the sources (online khabar) rises to the level of significant coverage (more content could be added from this) but the rest are just passing mentions in primary sources (match reports, squad announcements, etc.) and the usual database. This is not enough to demonstrate notability per GNG or BASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Of note is that several new sources were added to the article on 31 July 2022‎ (UTC).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY sources added by Nirmaljoshi. BBSTOP (talk) 05:38, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom): I considered changing to Keep after others mentioned the additional sources which were added, but only one of them actually contributes to significant coverage; the rest are stats tables, match reports and the like. Please let me know if I'm mistaken in this assessment:

[1] - Good in-depth bio

[2] - Stats table

[3] - Match report, brief mention

[4] - Stats table

[5] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list

[6] - Stats table

[7] - Team lineup announcement, brief mention

[8] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list

[9] - Team lineup announcement, name appears once in a list. –dlthewave ☎ 05:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason why one in-depth biography plus at least one other mention isn't enough to keep the article? Especially given that this biography contributes to broadening the scope of Wikipedia to include more diverse articles? If the assessment is that the first source is an in-depth bio then I would certainly support keeping rather than redirecting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Primary coverage (which includes match reports, team announcements, etc.) and wide ranging databases do not contribute to establishing notability. One of the reasons we usually require multiple independent reliable sources with significant coverage is to comply with V and NPOV. In general, BLPs should not be based on a single source. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:32, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because the criteria for inclusion (WP:GNG) requires multiple reliable sources with significant coverage. The most minimalistic view of that policy is two reliable articles of significant coverage, which this fails. Passing mentions don't count towards meeting notability requirements, although they can be used to source some facts. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's the maximalist view. The minimalist view is that for certain sportspeople one source with significant coverage in the article + routine, statistical coverage can be a proxy for GNG. St Anselm (talk) 13:54, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTCRIT #5 only makes sense if one such source in the article is sometimes sufficient. St Anselm (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SPORTCRIT was amended in this regard largely to ~~prevent~~ discourage creation of low quality stubs purely by means of scraping a database (see WP:NSPORTS2022, proposal 5; diff of change); it is in no way a bypass of GNG/BASIC and the requirement for multiple sources with significant coverage. The idea of one source with significant coverage being sufficient only has consensus for sources that are of such high quality and depth that it is utterly inconceivable that no other significant coverage exists; that is plainly not the case here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even reading what you are linking? The very first line of SPORTCRIT says A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of significant coverage, that is, multiple published[3] non-trivial[4] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[5] and independent of the subject. First, they are presumed, it isn't automatic just likely IF, and only IF they have been the subject of significant coverage by multiple publishers, ie: non-trivial secondary sources. In short, what GNG says, and what this fails to pass. Multiple, independent, sigcov, RS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've read that. And I don't think WP:NSPORT is consistent. Or even why it even exists, if it just falls back to GNG. So we just have to make the best sense of it we can. St Anselm (talk) 15:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They all get their authority from GNG. Many of the sub-criteria are essays, or projects, some are policy, but at the end of the day "2+ independent RS w/sigcov" is the gold standard. that is what I meant by minimalist. GNG says "multiple", and 2 is the smallest number that qualifies as "multiple". Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:35, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is either a keep, based on a decent source and a bunch of passing references coming pretty darned close to BASIC levels of coverage, or it's a redirect to List of Nepal ODI cricketers with a note added to his entry. From the POV of dealing with systematic bias there's some merit in being slightly more generous on the keep side here: chances are that more source exist in Nepal and that given his age, more are likely to be written. I'd be happy enough to keep on the basis that that's likely, but I've no doubt that that will enrage other people so would have no problem with a redirect. What this is not under any circumstances is a delete - there is a long standing consensus that cricket articles such as this are redirected to a suitable list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: In the team for another ODI and T20I. Anyone here are feel free to add this reliable sources [10][11] & Nepalese cricket team in Kenya in 2022. DIVINE (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of squad/team announcements and match reports. Such sources are primary, almost always not significant coverage and do not contribute to demonstrating notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:50, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but without WP:CRYSTALBALLING I think we can presume that the coverage will only grow as he plays more matches. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shariz Ahmad for a similarly new player. I actually created the article on Pat Cummins while he still technically failed the notability guidelines. Not saying Mahato will become a Test cricket captain, but we are allowed to be sensible about this. St Anselm (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2022 (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.