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.
Keep. The article meets
WP:NCRIC, which a closing admin was previously
unaware of. IgnorantArmies makes a valid point above too. The guideline is simple and provides a level playing field for the inclusion of all cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level (or in some cases international between minor cricket playing nations). I also feel this would be best discussed at the project page.
PinchHittingLeggy (
talk) 10:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:NCRIC, and the only reason given for deletion is "it's like the other one that got deleted", which is bad logic, especially as I believe it was an awful decision to delete.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The reason for the deletion nominations was given at the outset as "a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. Didn't even bat." Lack of notability is the issue, obviously. The presumption in NCRIC that hard-to-find reliable source have substantially reported on Mehta is implausible to say the least. There's even less to write about on the topic than the others. Didn't even bat!
SageGreenRider (
talk) 14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Has played in a major match and so meets
WP:NCRIC. Jack | talk page 10:03, 7 December 2015 (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.
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.
Keep. The article meets
WP:NCRIC, which a closing admin was previously
unaware of. IgnorantArmies makes a valid point above too. The guideline is simple and provides a level playing field for the inclusion of all cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level (or in some cases international between minor cricket playing nations). I also feel this would be best discussed at the project page.
PinchHittingLeggy (
talk) 10:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep Passes
WP:NCRIC, and the only reason given for deletion is "it's like the other one that got deleted", which is bad logic, especially as I believe it was an awful decision to delete.
Joseph2302 (
talk) 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The reason for the deletion nominations was given at the outset as "a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. Didn't even bat." Lack of notability is the issue, obviously. The presumption in NCRIC that hard-to-find reliable source have substantially reported on Mehta is implausible to say the least. There's even less to write about on the topic than the others. Didn't even bat!
SageGreenRider (
talk) 14:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. Has played in a major match and so meets
WP:NCRIC. Jack | talk page 10:03, 7 December 2015 (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.