Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mamata Kanojia (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2022 July 14.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. ✗plicit 12:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mamata Kanojia[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)

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. Although the previous AfD was recent, the article should be reevaluated because it quite clearly fails WP:NSPORT which requires a minimum of one SIGCOV source to be provided. –dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Cricket. –dlthewave ☎ 04:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. NSPORT is the guideline, not NCRIC, and an athlete cannot pass NSPORT without at least one SIGCOV being provided. Further, NSPORT doesn't presume notability, it just suggests that coverage is likely to exist, and in this case as with the other four articles previously kept on the grounds of NCRIC it appears that no coverage exists. BilledMammal (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Blue Square Thing in the last AfD. St Anselm (talk) 06:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
At the previous AfD, which was closed on 1 June as a SNOW keep, I wrote:

It's not unreasonable to assume that there will be non-English language coverage some of which is unlikely to be accessible given the period in which Kanojia played for India - that tricky period before proper web coverage and with little chance of being able to access archives. As a result I'm happy to keep here - as others have noted, she passes NCRIC in both its former and present forms and has had a very long domestic career: last played in 2020/21 and has played in more than 200 top-level domestic matches. CricketArchive has a photo of her. It doesn't have one of most male international cricketers. That confirms my keep vote.

My opinion has not changed significantly since then and I am still unable to access newspaper sources from India for the period in question, but consider the likelihood that coverage will be available to be very high indeed. At the very worse there are clear WP:ATD available, although I rather think that WP:NOTPAPER also has some application here - if this person were male we'd have a tonne or easy to access coverage; because she's female and from a non-anglophone part of the world it's significantly harder to access sources but her notability as a cricketer is not really in question. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

e2a: There appear to be a lot of passing references (at least - I can't access full versions) in Wisden India from at least 2013 (first time it was published) to 2020. Under Mamatha Kanojia - which is the spelling both CricInfo and CricketArchive now seem to use. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it's under a month since the last AFD, and the nominator seems to have made 0 attempt to look for non-English sources. WP:NONENG makes it clear that non-English sources are fine, and given that this player has represented their country, it's likely non-English sources exist in one of the native languages of India. Repeatedly re-nominating something because you don't like the previous outcome is disruptive, and this AFD so soon after the last one seems wholly disruptive and pointy to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another curious re-nom of a recently kept AfD. As an international cricketer from India, the chances of sources being in published press are high. And as an international cricketer for a full member country, her notability is not in any doubt. To echo Joseph2302, this is beginning to border on WP:DISRUPTIVE and WP:POINT. StickyWicket (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that the subject's name has been transliterated as Mamata Kanojia, Mamtha Kanojia, Mamatha Kanojia, and Mamta Kanojia. It will be worthwhile to search for those variants in Indian and cricket media archives, esp from 2003 and 2012 when she had her national team debut and comeback respectively. Abecedare (talk) 16:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or (my emp.) the sport specific criteria set forth below", and therefore meets WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comments in the previous AfD, and Joseph2302 and BST's well articulated comments in this one. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because the arguments made at the AfD from one month ago remain accurate. Extra because it was a WP:SNOW keep. Because, influenced by WP:FAIT I don't think editors should just do another AfD quickly after one closes just because they don't like the result, there needs to be a compelling reason to re-argue it and I don't see one. CT55555 (talk) 01:07, 29 June 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.