Dennis Freedman: Not one of the sources satisfies the independent, reliable and significant coverage requirement.  Source analysis: 1 , 5 , 8 , 10 are articles written by Freedman himself; 2 talks about how his phone started buzzing and him doing some interviews; 3 , 4 are interviews of him with no editorial content; 6 is about his tweets, plus Sportskeeda is unreliable for notability purposes; 7 covers someone else's reply to his tweet; 9 is an opinion piece on an unreliable site which essentially says that his tweets are funny.  A WP:BEFORE search turned up more such trivial coverage.  Maduant ( talk ) 20:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People , Journalism , Sports ,  and Australia .  Maduant ( talk ) 20:01, 31 May 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep While it's true that the subject has deleted their webpage and social media handles (which is unfortunate, as they contained some external links), that is not to imply he is not covered in secondary sources as a cricket writer/satirist.  For instance, there is Geo Super , Hindustan Times , Geo TV [61] [62] , ARY News , Indian Express , The Express Tribune , News18 , The Cricketer [63] , The Quint etc.  All of these are mainstream publications of course.  Plus, there is the extensive content on YouTube, such as this well-known documentary made for Cricingif, featuring Freedman with the who's who of Pakistani cricket.  Even if the links that are no longer relevant or satisfactory were to be omitted, a WP:STUB article could easily be salvaged based on the external coverage and principle of WP:NOTDONE .  Best, Mar4d ( talk ) 15:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] The last two sources are useless from a notability standpoint as they are written by Freedman himself.  And, with the exception of this tweet listicle , none of the remaining sources listed above have a byline/author - all are marked "Web Desk", "News Desk", etc, indicative of regurgitated tabloid press releases.  A lot of people have their tweets mentioned in the news frequently, that in itself does not confer notability.  WP:LOTSOFSOURCES is a classic argument to avoid at AfDs.  I'm yet to see a single independently bylined article that demonstrates why Freedman is notable.  WP:STUB and WP:NOTDONE would come into the picture if the topic's notability is established, which clearly isn't the case here.  Maduant ( talk ) 18:59, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Extraordinary Writ ( talk ) 22:34, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, - 🔥 𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌) 🔥 00:33, 15 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete I noticed this article is an orphan.  Most of the sources are not indepth per WP:SIGCOV and therefore fails WP:BIO .  LibStar ( talk ) 01:48, 22 June 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Final relist Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  02:20, 22 June 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus