Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Traveen Mathew

{{AFD help}}

:{{la|1=Traveen Mathew}} – (View AfDView log | edits since nomination)

:({{Find sources AFD|title=Traveen Mathew}})

Non-notable cricketer, who fails WP:GNG. Has only played in T10 cricket, not any FC, List A or T20 competition which can often help increase significant coverage. This article was moved to draftspace and then moved back despite minimal insufficient improvements, which is why this AFD is necessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• :Keep He has played two First Class matches, 12 List A matches and four T20 matches. He also represented Sri Lanka at the Under-19s Asian Cup. I have added more information and sources including two from The Papare which focus heavily on him. Lookslikely (Talk 18:43, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::i have added further information and another reference which features him as the main focus and in the article title. From my reading of the GNG rules this addition, along with the ones I previously made and are mentioned above, mean this article definitely passes the required SIG COV specification. Lookslikely (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::: Thank you for the improvements, but I'm still not convinced he is notable, so I wish to continue this AFD to get consensus. Of the sources, [https://www.newsfirst.lk/2021/12/21/sl-under-19s-off-to-the-uae-for-asia-cup-amidst-high-hopes], [https://sportstar.thehindu.com/cricket/lanka-premier-league-2023-squads-lpl-players-list-teams-colombo-jaffna-kandy-dambulla-galle/article67171427.ece] are passing mentions in tournament squad lists, [https://www.thepapare.com/two-more-sri-lankan-youngsters-invited-for-ipl-tryouts/] is one paragraph of basic stats, [https://srilankacricket.lk/2024/12/20-year-old-traveen-mathew-with-top-of-the-table-12-wickets-was-the-revelation-in-lanka-t10/] is from SLC so not independent coverage (and so does not contribute to WP:GNG, [https://srilankacricket.lk/2024/12/traveen-mathew-strikes-again-with-big-wkts-of-kamindu-angelo-mathews-and-zadran/] is a match report with a bit of basic information about him. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
• ::::Ok. I tried. Lookslikely (talk) 18:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:52, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete: This is an encyclopedia and not a profile page where anybody can get to feature himself without any major achievements. The subject clearly fails GNG, yet the original editor is still trying to defend. Lookslikely, if you're paid to edit, kindly disclose conflict of interest. To the closing admin, this articles fails all criteria. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::Cameremote, your comment makes me wonder if you even examined this article. If you looked at the page history, you'd quickly see that that the article creator is Janeesh 22, not Lookslikely. Secondly, do not cast aspersions, like accusing an editor of working for pay while undisclosed, you better have evidence to support those accusations or you could be facing a block yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

• Reply to above: I am not the original editor of this page. I just saw it on this list, Googled the guy and added some stuff to his page. I am not paid to edit on Wikipedia and couldn't give two hoots if it's deleted or not. Oh and before accusing people of things, at least have the courage to sign your username (Cameremote) chum. Lookslikely (talk) 01:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:Out of boredom, I’m willing to save this page out of boredom if it has enough sources. Reader of Information (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::I will start working on it tomorrow if this is okay with y’all because honestly, it’s getting late lol. Reader of Information (talk) 01:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

::Once again, clearly fails the notability criteria. And thanks for bringing to my attention the signing issue, I'm using mobile, and I assume it auto signs. Thanks for that. I say again, please disclose COI if you're directly or indirectly associated to the subject, because the way you're defending an article that fails GNG is alarming. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place

:::As I said, Cameremote, either provide proof of your allegations or stop making them. There is nothing inherently COI about defending an article from being deleted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:::: I'm just trying to point out to the editor that the way he's defending the article is somehow. He should purely suggest that the article be moved back to draft, for further improvement rather than over-defending an article. Note: I'm not alleging anyone, and if there's any offense taken, my absolute apolgies. Cameremote (talk) I came from a remote place 01:59, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:Keep: The person in the article is clearly notable. Whether it passes WP:GNG or not is not really determinable as there is one source that is independent but I’m unsure if that suffices as it passing GNG. Although, it seems the sources are of Sri Lanka or newspapers mainly focused on cricket, the exception is Daily News.

:

:Furthermore, I think it can he concluded that this crickteer is of presumed notability as he has been documented in multiple sources that range from 4 years ago to the most recent being a month ago.

:

:In conclusion, I could see this article being of notability even if it’s a stub.

:
If the consensus is overwhelmingly delete, then I’d recommend it go back to the draft so it can be improved rather than delete because the information there is clearly of use and not useless.

:Cheers,
Reader of Information (talk) 17:52, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

:

{{resize|91%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.}}
Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is support for draftification.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

::I'm ok with draftification if it's that or deletion although I still think there is enough to justify this article remaining as is. Lookslikely (talk) 23:15, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.