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, with no prejudice against possible merge into larger article. Mojo Hand (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sunit Ghosh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Rejected PROD. The reason I initally PRODDED was "Poorly referenced BLP", and the article creator reverted my edit, saying that the subject was presumed notable, and that "poorly referenced" wasn't a valid criterion. I dream of horses (T) @ 14:11, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per WP:NCRIC - "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire." Has umpired two Test matches and seven ODIs. Poorly reference is NOT a valid reason for deletion - meeting notability standards (or not) is. Read the notability guidelines next time instead of wasting everyone's time. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:20, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Lugnuts. The community has created fair and reasonable measurement of notability, and this umpire meets those measurements doktorb _words^deeds 14:39, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Merge. I agree with all concerned that he is notable but in the absence of any information other than statistics concerning matches umpired, it would be sensible to merge the information into a central List type article (this isn't the only cricket biog that consists of just a single reference and two lines of text) which can be better looked after (in terms of vandalism and BLP violations). Nick (talk) 15:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's on my watchlist, so "vandalism and BLP violations" wont be an issue. If we merged every stub into a main list of article, we'd have no articles. There are literally thousands of biography articles (not just cricket) that are in the format of "X did Y in Z <ref> <categories>". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 16:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, we shouldn't have thousands of biographical articles with only "X did Y in Z", and we also shouldn't rely on only one editor to keep the vandals away. --I dream of horses (T) @ 03:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to the policy about this? Oh you can't, as there isn't one. You best get proding all the stubs on here, based on your logic. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 31 May 2014 (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.