Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devashish Nilosey (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 keep. The arguments for deletion here are strong and coherent but there appears to be a clear consensus among the community for the article to be kept at this time. Waggers TALK 10:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Devashish Nilosey[edit]

[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 GNG and NSPORTS due to lack of significant coverage. No SIGCOV sources were found before, during or after the previous AfD over a year ago and since that time SPORTBASIC has been updated to explicitly require that at least one SIGCOV source be present in the article, which this does not meet. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. –dlthewave ☎ 04:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's still my belief that somebody playing this number of matches, representing India U19 and becoming a coach after his playing career will have GNG passing sourcing someone either offline or in non-English language sources. However it would have been nice for something more substantial to have appeared by now, hence the change to weak keep. There's no suitable redirect here as he's played/coached for a number of different sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The limited coverage that has been found in English language media would seem to suggest that there should, as RF22 says, be coverage in non-English language and/or non-electronically findable sources. I remain concerned that this move in deletion trends is going to have a significant impact on athletes from places such as the Indian subcontinent and there should be some concern that as a result Wikipedia becomes whiter (and more male as it happens). If we have to look at a redirect - which would be the established consensus approach in the case of cricketers - we'd look at List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers as all but three of his senior matches were for the side. With a note added, of course. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep extended career at top-flight domestic level and some top-flight coaching also, and per the offline arguments above Bumbubookworm (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's no presumption of notability for athletes who play at a certain level, and SIGCOV sources must actually be provided (at least one must be included in the article per NSPORTS) to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:06, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IAR. If the guidelines suggest deleting this sort of cricketer, it means the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction. It was somewhat reasonable deleting cricketers who had played a handful of FC matches, but not one with such a lengthy career. St Anselm (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The consensus here is clearly to Keep this article but no one has offered the nominator a source that would establish WP:SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:52, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find much for "देवाशीष निलोसे", just a few announcements relaying stuff he said in his capacity as Indore Division Cricket Association secretary, e.g. here and here, or mentions in reports on cricket association elections. JoelleJay (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the cogent arguments of Rugbyfan22 and others. I think the subject meets our guidelines for WP:SPORTCRIT Lightburst (talk) 03:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
SPORTCRIT requires a source of independent, non-routine SIGCOV be cited in the article. Which source fulfills this? JoelleJay (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the argument RugbyFan22 made this time and last year when the first AFD for this happened. dlthewave nominated this for deletion both times, the first time ending with 8 people saying to keep it, and no one but the nominator wanting it deleted. Kindly stop repeating the same nomination hoping for a different result. Dream Focus 05:19, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
NSPORT was overhauled in the interim, it is perfectly reasonable to expect !voters to assess using the revised guideline, which requires a source of SIGCOV be cited in the article for subguideline-based presumptions to even apply in the first place. JoelleJay (talk) 05:48, 24 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.