Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. Srivatsa Chakravarthy

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 delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:31, 31 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

K. Srivatsa Chakravarthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Does not meet the criteria outlined at WP:NTENNIS. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 04:50, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Only trivial coverage not sufficient enough to establish notability per WP:SPORTCRIT. ––𝗙𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝗹𝗗𝘂𝗱𝗲 talk 08:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Curbon7 (talk) 06:39, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Table tennis is not assessed using WP:NTENNIS. There is no specific criteria for table tennis, so just use the generic WP:SPORTCRIT or WP:GNG. Curbon7 (talk) 06:41, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete the coverage does not rise to the level of passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - as per others.--Melaleuca alternifolia | talk 15:31, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletefails GNG.JeepersClub (talk) 11:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Subject fails General Notability and Sports Criteria; references are bare URLs with no target page(s) (one is dead already anyway). No sign of notability. GenQuest ^"scribble" 01:21, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The below "references" (if you can even call them that) are mere mentions—mainly just match score listings—and nothing significant. One even identifies him as a 'trainee'. They prove he exists, but we already know that. No notability is shown by such mentions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 03:48, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I disagree with your blanket interpretation, but let's set that aside for a moment. My issue with your argument is that when looking over Wikipedia:Notability (sports), it seems to me that nearly every section states notability if they compete at the national or international level in a significant tournament or event. This person has and does (as a member of the MPTTA). I am looking at articles we have concerning india and table tennis, like Indore#Sports, Table tennis in India, and Table Tennis Federation of India, and International Table Tennis Federation, etc. If we consider other players who have competed at significant events at the national level to be notable, what's the issue here? - jc37 04:32, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I was dubious at first, but when I did a search, I found this mention and this, and this, and this listing, and this pdf. - jc37 03:06, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37: Those are not good references. Do I really have to do a source assessment table? ––FormalDude talk 04:36, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  All I was looking for in this case, was mentions, per my comments above. I will freely admit to not knowing enough about this topic or this person, but out of fairness to the topic, if this was an NFL player in Detroit, I'm wondering, would we be having this discussion? It would be nice to see more effort in AfD discussions than drive-by voting. If it fails GNG, please explain why it does. WP:AADD is merely an essay, but there are reasons for those best practices. Not to mention taking a moment and trying a bit of WP:BEFORE. If the subject turns out non-notable, fine, I'm cool with that. But can we, as a community, do better than this please. - jc37 04:51, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I would certainly be having this discussion if it was about an NFL player in Detroit, as long as they had the same abysmal amount of coverage as this person does. In fact, I have PROD'd several articles about NFL players with similarly weak sources. I cannot help what the community does and does not want to see as generally notable, but I am capable of applying Wikipedia guidelines and policies equally across topics.

  My point is that it fails SPORTCRIT. My reasoning is that SPORTCRIT statestrivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability, and I think this article has only trivial coverage. I did do a search on the subject per WP:BEFORE, and could not find any non-trivial coverage. ––FormalDude talk 05:17, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Am I misreading WP:NGRIDIRON? It states: "American football/Canadian football players and head coaches are presumed notable if they: Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any one of the following professional leagues: the Canadian Football League, the National Football League..."

  So as long as they played in a game, they're notable? Or am I misunderstanding?

  So why should we not apply the same guidance to someone who plays a Table Tennis Federation of India game at the national level? What do you feel I am missing? - jc37 05:25, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  A guideline on table tennis that says what you're trying to claim. You can't just WP:SYNTH your own version of inherent notability from completely different sports.

  
  

  Since there isn't one, we should go by WP:SPORTCRIT, which says:A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. Emphasis on non-trivial, footnote #3. ––FormalDude talk 07:07, 30 August 2021 (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.