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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vishant More[edit]

Vishant More (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) 11:13, 18 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 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has played in 30+ matches across all three formats, and a quick search finds this and this for starters. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Lugnuts. Fade258 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Does fail the updated guidelines, but there is some coverage on him as a player. I'm not sure the second source Lugnuts provides would be GNG coverage but the other is, and I'd imagine there'd be more in a more extensive search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Easy keep this, 30+ appearances across all formats, including a first-class century. StickyWicket (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ^ comments from others above. The probability of sources existing suggests the article should be developed rather than deleted. Perhaps it needs someone based in India or with a better understanding of Indian sources to do so? Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:31, 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.