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 Bengal cricketers. ✗plicit 13:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Kaif (cricketer, born 1996)[edit]

Mohammed Kaif (cricketer, born 1996) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails to meet WP:NCRICKET. --Michri michri (talk) 11:36, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• It does seem like we don't class players who play in the Vijay Hazare Trophy as presumed notable anymore, according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Official cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, but in this case, there's a bit of coverage about him to meet WP:GNG such as this and this, and other matches for the search "Mohammed Kaif" + Bengal + cricket on Google. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:52, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Those snippets are nothing more than a squad announcement and reporting of his brother's tweet; indeed they only exist because of that tweet. They do not constitute significant coverage, nor are they secondary sources. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both the sources in reality refer to the same incident. You are marking the article as trivial and rather non-notable yourself, Lugnuts. -Michri michri (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2022 February 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. From the view of WP:GNG, He had significant coverage in several renowned online news portal where he passed this criteria and as for notable he must played at least one game on highest international level or domestic level, from the view of WP:NCRICKET where as he failed to meet this criteria. Fade258 (talk) 12:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fade258: Please provide links to these sources (the "several renowned online news portal(s)") so that we can assess their content with respect to GNG. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fade258:, what you say is nothing but clueless and insignificant until and unless you convey the sources or citations here.

  @Wjemather and @Michri. I am talking about those news portal which has been mentioned by Lugnuts. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 14:41, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Fade258:, those are sheer mockery, both are connected to his elder brother and refer to the same incident indeed. A single incident can not make a person, irrespectve of his or her field, notable enough to meet GNG. Can you deny the fact? Michri michri (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I see and now I am taking my hand out from this discussion where as two references provided by Lugnuts didn't pass the GNG. Thank you ! Fade258 (talk) 14:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Per my comment above, this is not GNG-passing coverage. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. May I frankly speak, all the sources related to this article except his Cricinfo profile are either directly or indirectly in a few cases somehow connected to his elder brother, The Sultan of Bengal, Mohammed Shami. --Michri michri (talk) 14:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• If there is nothing on this guy, then redirect to List of Bengal cricketers per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect. I don't think in this instance the above presented sources carry enough weight to satisfy GNG. Can always revisit this article when he player has made more appearances, and with it more coverage. For now a redirect as suggested by Lugnuts is the best course of action. StickyWicket (talk) 17:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Bengal cricketers Yeah I'm redirect on this one, not seeing enough despite what some others are saying for a GNG pass in the search I've done, and fails the updated guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What is the point of redirecting with such an improbable search term? How would that be useful to anyone? Is he even mentioned in other pages where blue linking to his team list would be warranted? JoelleJay (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:R#KEEP. The fact that some coverage exists and there is a redirect target would be a reason to redirect. Mohammed Kaif redirects to another article Mohammad Kaif so an alternative has to be used. And yes there are links from other articles. A865 (talk) 23:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect, either to the List of Bengal cricketers or, as an alternative, Mohammed Shami - his brother. There are cases where we've redirected other family members to articles in the past. Despite the unlikely search, that preserves the page content - although much of the coverage reflects his family, it's entirely possible that there may be enough to warrant a standalone article at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:28, 19 February 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.