Deletion of Audrish Banerjee

Comment: No sources, and a web search turns up nothing either. Zero sources means the topic outright fails  and , so it is not notable, and zero sources also mean the content violates the principle of |verifiability (of course, it's different if sources are out there but not yet in the article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPORTCRIT||WP:GNG||WP:V)

Comment: First-class cricketer, passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC)

Comment: as is stands, it seems clear that the subject fails  – zero significant coverage outside of the usual cricket stats sites which, as they contain records for almost everything, cannot be held up as an indicator of notability. Articles compiled exclusively from these sites tend to be as described above – "a stat dump masquerading as a biography" – which will almost always contravene OTSTATS. Finally, while playing the odd match here and there may be enough for NCRIC, it is a rather poor indicator of whether a subject will meet  – the guideline is obviously overly inclusive, and as such should be largely disregarded at AfD (per consensus at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 135#The criteria of SPORT here are too inclusive|this RfC
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTSTATS||WP:GNG)

Comment: The 2 keep votes so far hinge on the subject passing , a |subject-specific notability guideline. The SNGs are considered placeholders for the GNG, the |general notability guideline. If a subject passes an SNG, that means one can have a reasonable expectation that the subject will also pass the GNG (at least, one would hope so). An SNG like CRIN ''cannot override'' the GNG
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN||WP:SNG||WP:GNG)