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. (X! · talk)  · @230  ·  04:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-Indian Hindu cricketers[edit]

List of non-Indian Hindu cricketers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

A random intersection of two unrelated features. Being a non-Indian Hindu isn't a defining feature for most of these cricketers. Completely unreferenced as well. Was previously nominated as a WP:CSD#G1, but was removed after the originator stated 'many people are searching for the above topic, research is going on for true hindus outside india playing cricket'. That may be the case, but I don't think this article is the solution. The-Pope (talk) 09:44, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Non-notable and it's not even sourced, violating WP:V and WP:OR. Aaroncrick (talk) 10:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a completely irrelevant intersection of list criteria. -SpacemanSpiff 10:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: completely unsourced, which could cause BLP concerns, also such an article creates precedent too which I'm not sure would be good for the project. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Not notable and original research WP:OR. Annette46 (talk) 11:20, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a piece of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Nev1 (talk) 12:08, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with all above, an un-needed and not-notable list. Harrias (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete strange article, if it was sourced possibly weak keep, but without any good sources it is a delete DRosin (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete while I imagine this could be sourced, I don't see how this could be a managable list or an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: unsourced, non-encyclopædic list. Although it would be better as a category, the subject is not a defining feature. --TheGrimReaper 17:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nothing inherently notable about a list of athletes based on their religion. I don't see (for example) "List of non-American Christian baseball players". TJ Spyke 20:16, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, trivial intersection of qualities. Nyttend (talk) 20:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even distinct enough for a category. Priyanath ^talk 00:33, 28 December 2009 (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.