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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jeísa Chiminazzo[edit]

Jeísa Chiminazzo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The mountain I’m willing to die on. The very most I could find in my Before was a one sentence quote in NYT about Brazilians buying apartments in Miami or New York City, nothing has been found about her career at all. And before you say it, we need reliable sources for statements about her career, because directories are only back-ups. And another thing... even in Portuguese the only sources about her were “she got married.” Nothing related to career. Trillfendi (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Should be drafted first by the creator. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:36, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because subject fails WP:NMODEL. It's telling that so much of the article is taken up with items about her personal life. -The Gnome (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2019 (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.

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F. Moody[edit]

Michael F. Moody (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet WP:BASIC or WP:MUSICBIO. The article is almost entirely reliant upon primary sources that are directly affiliated with the LDS Church. There's this secondary source, but it does not provide significant coverage, having only two sentences about the subject, with the rest being quotations. WP:BEFORE searches are providing no better. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As per nom above. Sources are mostly primary and external links doesn't help. ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. Skirts89 (talk) 00:39, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, since subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. -The Gnome (talk) 21:13, 24 January 2019 (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.

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. Per multiple suggestions, I will also salt this for "a while". -- RoySmith (talk) 01:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conspiracy Series by Shane Dawson[edit]

Conspiracy Series by Shane Dawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non notable series, article was recreated again after getting A7 speedy deleted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United Shane Dawson Conspiracy Series. The article's creator avoids AFC process and reverts any CSD R2 tries (since the draft still exists it is a valid thing to do). Fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage from secondary reliable sources that is not WP:ROUTINE. Simply a WP:TOOSOON case here since there is no coverage outside of "trailer released, premiere date announced" etc. like the 2 references in the article. I recommend salting for some period if needed to prevent from quick recreation. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Pinging the voter on the last AfD and the admin who deleted the first time Gonnym and RHaworth. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 22:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yet again - Very disruptive to recreate this again. The article can't even get its information correct, with stating that the first episode aired on "January 10, 2019" yet "is going to premiere on January 30". Even if it did premiere, it does not automatically get an article. It should show notability first as this is only a YouTube video. --Gonnym (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Honestly I think creation of this should be blocked for a period since people keep trying to create it yet Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Trillfendi (talk) 00:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The article's creator now tried to REMOVE the AfD template per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Conspiracy_Series_by_Shane_Dawson&oldid=879104050 and even put in the Talk page as if the AfD was closed as Keep per https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Conspiracy_Series_by_Shane_Dawson&oldid=879104188. The editor is becoming very disruptive with his behavior. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 01:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability. —teb728 t c 03:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Using WP for promotional activity; no evidence of notability. This needs salting. Britishfinance (talk) 09:19, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as WP:TOOSOON, salting for a while may be a good idea as well. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. I agree with the suggestion to salt. -The Gnome (talk) 21:14, 24 January 2019 (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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of CBeebies shows[edit]

List of CBeebies shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Completely unsourced. Fails WP:NOTTVGUIDE. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:22, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Not COMPLETELY unsourced because it links to the Cbeebies website's list of shows, though the citations are not given in-line and it does not indicate where on that page each program can be found (if they can be found) so not verifiable. This is basically a category page and would probably be acceptable if reformatted as such. FOARP (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep You have an entire list of shows that have articles linking to them and have sources in them. Known network with plenty of programming. I'm usually for these types of deletions, but mainly for channels that mainly carry reruns and originate negligible new content. This airs plenty of new content. WP:SOFIXIT. Nate • (chatter) 05:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. TV channel broadcast lists should be limited to original programming. Otherwise listing every single acquired programme that has appeared both currently and in the past, without adequate sourcing to verify this, is original research. Ajf773 (talk) 06:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mrschimpf - a notable network with its own programming, many of them with their own articles. The absence of sources does not mean sources don't exist. The topic is notable. The article needs fixing, sure, but that does not mean deletion. Per NOTTVGUIDE: "...historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." A list of programs on a major international channel is acceptable to me. Nothing in NOTTVGUIDE (or anywhere else that I'm aware of) states program lists must be original shows only anyway. -- Whats new?^(talk) 10:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If we are going to keep the article, can we work together to remove unsourced and unneeded clutter? How are we supposed to identify that those dates are accurate? BBC Genome does not have every single schedule in existence. Foxnpichu (talk) 19:38, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- TVGUIDE seems to not be applicable here. This is a bounded list of programming on a network -- the majority of which is notable -- as opposed to a schedule. matt91486 (talk) 02:27, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a completely valid list article and easily sourceable. These are mostly original programming produced for the network, and many are notable. There may be some need for cleanup. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:07, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, though someone may want to remove the non-original programming as per above. -- NoCOBOL (talk) 13:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is an informative and useful list that has encyclopaedic value, just what lists are supposed to be. -The Gnome (talk) 21:19, 24 January 2019 (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.

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Caruana[edit]

Matt Caruana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

fails WP:GNG; fails WP:NHOCKEY Joeykai (talk) 19:33, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom and no sources. ImmortalWizard(chat) 20:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and above--simply playing in the ECHL is not enough for NHOCKEY Enwebb (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Falls short of NHOCKEY and GNG. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteNo secondary sources to establish GNG, doesn't meet the inclusionary standards of NHOCKEY. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:46, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination since subject fails WP:NHOCKEY. -The Gnome (talk) 21:21, 24 January 2019 (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.

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Surgical Case Reports[edit]

Journal of Surgical Case Reports (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

PRODded by mistake (was deleted after a PROD in 2011 but re-created). PROD reason was "Non-notable journal. Not indexed in any selective database: not in Scopus, MEDLINE, or any Clarivate Analytics database (except the not very selective Emerging Sources Citation Index). Does not meet WP:NJournals or WP:GNG." PROD reason still stands, hence: delete. Randykitty (talk) 18:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Case_report#Publishing. It appears that there are hundreds of such journals with similar names and so it would be sensible to merge our content about them into one place to help provide readers with good context, using sources such as How to choose the best journal for your case report. Andrew D. (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, don't see the value in a redirect either. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found nothing anywhere on the web (with one exception, this database) that is independent of its publishers, and its impact factor is not listed in this list of journals. As such, it does not appear to satisfy WP:NJournals or WP:GNG. ComplexRational (talk) 03:02, 20 January 2019 (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.

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 keep as per WP:SNOW. There's consensus that AfD isn't the right venue to sort this out and even the nominator now agrees that WP:RFC is more appropriate. Schwede66 20:19, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Please note that this page will be used for WP:MULTIAFD for all articles in Category:Lists of international cricket five-wicket hauls by ground and Category:Lists of international cricket centuries by ground. For a while, I had no problems with this type of articles. I even cricket four of them (with one is a F list). However, I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium and it really caught my eyes. It was deleted basically because it is WP:NOTSTATS. Now that I think about it, there is no "List of international goals/home runs by grounds" in football/baseball, or any other sports. It is safe to say that goals have the same worth as five wicket hauls and centuries. Please understand that I am not trying to WP:POINT, I just realized that these articles should not exist here. Thanks, and feel to expand your arguments both for or against deletion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons provided above:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The Lord's ones should probably be separated out; due to the significance of getting one's name on the honours boards, the lists would meet WP:LISTN and that should IMO be the criteria we would weigh these lists against. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Galobtter: it could be merged with the Lord's honours board page. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these look like original research as well (have not check them all yet), if a list did make notability based on secondary sources then it could be kept, though merging Lords feels more tidy. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• Delete and where appropriate copy across to the article about the ground they pertain to, maybe as a collapsible box for neatness. StickyWicket (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. A simple ESPNCricinfo records search can provide the best bowling figures for every match at a given ground: [1] and [2]. Duplicating content here is heavily reliant on manual editing. Ajf773 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ajf773 can you explain why it would not be helpful to keep them? Other cricket lists can also be found easily on Cricinfo. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The above contains ten features lists:

• List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval
• List of international cricket centuries at Bellerive Oval
• List of international cricket centuries at Brabourne Stadium
• List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium
• List of international cricket centuries at Kensington Oval
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Brabourne Stadium
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Chidambaram Stadium
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Riverside Ground
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium

of which List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval has also appeared on the main page. All of these lists can rise to this level. May I suggest though that a minimum number of centuries and five-wicket hauls be achieved before a standalone list is created. Much like for the individual players list for centuries (25) and five-wicket hauls (15). – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:Ianblair23, it would break my heart to be part of deleting all this hard work, the issue is not formatting but content can you offer an argument for why it should be kept from WP:NOTSTATS or other. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Hi Dushan Jugum, I have been part of many AFDs where WP:NOTSTATS has been used for deletion and I supported many of them. I would argue that these lists are different. These are a listing of the highest accolades a player can achieve in the great game of cricket, an international cricket century or five-wicket haul. Most grounds have honour boards listing these achievements. These are certainly notable in my opinion. I still feel the best approach is to have stand alone lists for the grounds where a certain number of centuries and fifers have been reached included with appropriate prose. The rest be can merged into the article on the ground itself just like what we do with players who haven't reached the threshold for a stand alone centuries and five-wicket hauls lists. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ianblair23: Partially agree with you. Some of them like of the Lord's can be kept with merge or modification. But even if it had like 50 fifers (like Shere Bangla, which I created and is F list), it's not always significant to have its own stand alone. Like other sports, list of achievements by players should exist, and by ground should only exist if the venue itself is significant. ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is important information. Unfortunately it is repeated throughout Wikipedia eg List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Mitchell Johnson etc. We do not need 5 wicket hauls by person, country and stadium (sortable table?). The solution, however, is not a blanket deletion, therefore, keep with selective mergers. In the examples I checked the information is given enough context and notability to pass WP:NOTSTATS. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

@Dushan Jugum: That would work, like merging all of them to their respective countries' grounds. ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I picked ONE list at random: List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Shaheed Chandu Stadium. Why would the nom create it on the 17th Jan, to then nominate it for deletion one day later, with it being created 8 minutes before posting this at the Cricket Project?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is within the bounds of their deletion nomination comment. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

This is indeed quite strange behaviour and this whole AFD seems POINTY to me but I think this is good opportunity to set some threshold for these types of lists. In the case above where only three international fifers have been taken at the ground well that could be easily merged into the Shaheed Chandu Stadium article. Perhaps we could use the same threshold as we do for players list – 25 for centuries and 15 for fifers. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about 25 for each, for simplicity? That's a reasonable compromise, although personally I worry about the level of NOTSTATS and OR in these - in particular I am unconvinced that we need to have the names of the people dismissed - we can just link to the scorecard can't we? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23 and Lugnuts I thought I already clarified I am not trying to be pointy. I changed my opinion and looked things from a different perspective, which is perfectly alright. ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not safe to blithely assert that a century or five wickets in an event potentially lasting a day or more is equivalent to a goal in a 90 minute football match. Someone will need to present some statistics to demonstrate that equivalence.

  I'd suggest that bundling the "by ground" lists into "by country" lists, like List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Australian cricket grounds, is the way to go. Where the lists are very short, five or ten entries say, they can also appear on the article for the ground, but if they are longer they could be spun out into a separate (sub-)article. A similar analysis applies to other lists, eg by player: incorporate into the main article where you can, but separate out where it becomes oppressive and unwieldy. 213.205.240.201 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So far, there are five ways suggested by the participants.
  1. Delete all. (They do not follow WP:NOTSTATS, WP:GNG, WP:NOR, and are not simply significant compared to the achievements by players, and also other sports are taken into account)
  2. Merge all to their respective achievements by country only. (Which I mostly prefer for now)
  3. Keep only the notable ones. (Like the Lord's, because of it's honour board. I can fine with this case, but their significance should be explained and a lot of modifications required regarding article titles, potential merging etc.)
  4. Keep only the ones which have a certain number of achievements. (It will be difficult to come up with a minimum level and I do not believe it will make sense. Because achievements in Lord's and and say a normal stadium in India/New Zealand etc. are vastly different regarding historical significance, quality of matches, other variables etc.)
  5. Keep all (They are all significant and some of them are featured)

Let me know if I missed something. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all I am coming to this AfD from WP:INDIA and WP:CRICKET. I don't consider this as a violation of WP:NOSTAT, I consider these articles a logical and acceptable WP:SPINOFF based on Wikipedia:Content_forking#Acceptable_types_of_forking The stadium article should contain a paragraph summarizing these lists and should have a link to these articles about 5 wicket hauls. The readers of the stadium article would most likely also be interested in reading these records. I also note that many of them are FLs. Someone said keep only notable ones, the problem here would be how will me make a reasonable criteria of what is notable and what is not, if the stadium is notable and has its own article, then the stadium article must also contain a paragraph or line about the 5 wicket hauls in that stadium. And I don't support a merging all of them and making a highly bloated Country page is not the right way. It would be gigantic and would again need splitting, so we will continue in circles. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: I think there are a very few of them notable enough. WP:SPINOFF will be very difficult and inconsistent. There is not any five wicket haul article for Old Trafford Cricket Ground, even it has played a lot more matches than other grounds with the list. In terms of merging, it would not be a problem with collapsible boxes. As I've stated earlier, we have to look at other sports' wikiprojects in order to be consistent. Merging in fifers/centuries by country is the best option IMO. ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Also, if people really wants to see them, merging would not be a problem and will create ONE significant list per country for centuries and fifers each. I think people are interested to see goals scored in a football ground as well, but list of goals by individual players is good enough. Club/countries listing their own records is also enough, like List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics and List of Australia Test cricket records. Rather than listing, only summarizing the notable facts seems fair (example: M. A. Chidambaram Stadium#Notable events). Also, some of the grounds play other sports rather than only cricket, which might make the lists unfair. ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Unfortunately, I cannot assume this is a good faith nomination, especially because a number of these articles are quality articles or featured lists, and the nominator has contributed extensively to some of these pages, which is baffling. (Also baffling is the nominator's recent attempt to get all articles with one source administratively deleted or them suddenly "joining" other WikiProjects.) This is a WP:TRAINWRECK. Some of these pages may not be notable and may need to be merged, but it's insane to delete all of these at once because one other article on the topic was deleted several months ago. SportingFlyer T·C 00:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: will you guys please stop attacking me. Just focus on the discussion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: whenever I go for one article at a time, you guys claim the same that I am being "pointy" also, eh? What's the point of MULTIAFD? You guys are too afraid for something I don't know. Stop abusing the policies. One wise IP ones told me WP:GAMING while I was just pointing out the policies and guidelines, turns out it's the same case here, trying to justify by attacking one user. ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ImmortalWizard: Did you read WP:MULTIAFD? It includes the text: An article with a fair or better chance of standing on its own merits should not be bundled— nominate it separately. For the avoidance of doubt, bundling should not be used to form consensus around policy decisions such as "should Wikipedia include this type of article". Based off your recent post on my talk page here [3], it appears you saw one article which was properly deleted (though a merge result would have been better IMO) and assumed this was a general policy consensus for deleting all of these articles. The fact you mentioned the Lord's article could possibly get kept above (and didn't strike it) shows this isn't a proper use of WP:MULTIAFD, as you're trying to change policy with this nomination. Feature lists almost certainly should not be bundled, as they almost certainly stand on their own merit. It makes it impossible to vote in any way except for keep all on WP:TRAINWRECK grounds, even though there may be an article or few in the list that's better merged somewhere. You've also responded to every keep voter so far, so I'd like to politely remind you of our WP:BLUD policy. SportingFlyer T·C 02:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: apologies for working hastily. But the situation ended up like this. I tried other alternatives before this but simply alleged of being "pointy". This discussion I'd going really well so far and I am proud of that. As I've said, I would prefer merge to achievements by country by now. So if you want, I would allow you to remove the tags from the by country achievements from this nomination. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were called pointy here, so instead of trying to gain policy consensus on whether these should be included somewhere like the Wikiproject page, you decided to go ahead and nominate every single article in the category? And then you say "the situation ended up like this," as if it's someone else's fault? I'm also not removing anything, it's not my job to fix spurious nominations and these should all be kept pending further discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer I did seek for concensus on cricket wikiproject, but as I've said, I was too hasty. And no I don't blame anyone for ending up like this. If I were, I would only blame myself, now it's up to admins. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Seems to a vexatious nomination and it puzzles me why they are being nominated en masse. There is no lack of space on Wikipedia. Valuable encyclopedic articles that are better worked into a over a long period of time before they are nominated. scope_creep^Talk 01:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep sure every afd is vexatious. There is a reason for MULTIAFD. I don't mind if this nomination stays on for months, until a clear consensus, after all 100+ articles are at stake. And it's never mentioned that this nomination is because of lack of space. Also, I did argue on their values. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every Afd is not vexatious. Most are for obvious reasons. This isn't. scope_creep^Talk 02:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all As per SportingFlyer WP:MULTIAFD is not to be used to delete a whole category of articles, which is what is being attempted here. Spike 'em (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all Per SportingFlyer and Spike (and others). Apart from several featured lists that have been bundled into this one nomination, the whole thing is a big pointy trainwreck. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and consider elsewhere - this is just wasting everyone's time. There is no chance of an AfD decision to delete all these lists. After one of these articles was deleted, consensus should have been formed within the cricket project as to whether all/only some/no "fifers by ground" articles are suitable for WP before the entire category was hurled into a chaotic AfD with an apparent disregard for WP:ALLORNOTHING.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and start a proper discussion/RfC about it. This need a proper thought out discussion and consensus, not a seven day AfD debate for 100+ articles, some of which are FLs. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph2302 yeah can do that. But this can stay here for a month or two? ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this AfD is not going to be kept open for "a month or two", that simply doesn't happen -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has become a 'snow keep' in my opinion, even the nominator does not want to delete. A new topic has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2019 (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.

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vimb[edit]

Vimb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

does not have notability, all of its references are from blog pages or its github page Editor-1 (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Editor-1 (talk) 05:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. After some searching, found one non-selfpublished source. Doesn't appear to be notable. Enterprisey (talk!) 05:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• How many non-selfpublished sources does it need? It is a useful aid and compilation of information and further reading that is not very easy to find. Many similar software projects with small or stub articles and with a similar situation of non-selfpublished sources are not marked for deletion and may have even fewer references. I think this article should not be deleted. Narwaro (talk) 10:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Narwaro is the creator of the contested article and its major contributor. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: WP:USEFUL is not a reason to keep, and the fact that other articles exist just suggests that those should be nominated for deleting in turn. With that said, you do have a point that niche topics like this might be sufficiently notable within their field for us to consider their inclusion within Wikipedia, similar to how we include all species, but that is not current policy and our duty here is to implement policy, and if we want to change it then there is a suitable area for that elsewhere. NoCOBOL (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I see the point that WP:USEFUL is not a reason to keep, I agree, but to me WP:Notability is given for the following reasons:
  • "Significant coverage" is given, the topic is addressed directly and is mentioned non-trivially in the source discussed above (which I think would be a good addition as a reference), I think you will agree that this source is reliable and published;
  • "Sources": While I agree that there are primary references included in the article, these are foremost used for versions and release dates, for which there cannot be any other source than the developer itself, which I think is also agreeable. While most people, including myself, do not consider blog posts reliable sources on their own (WP:RSSELF), I think these can be valid references owing to the fact that a number of them are stating the same points which to me is a strong indication that those are valid, objective points. In addition to that it is quite challenging in general to be covered or find coverage for software projects that are not backed by companies that can ignite coverage in published sources by campaigns or sponsoring.
  • To many Wikipedia is a starting point for a given topic that gives an abstract and accumulates resources for further reading. This article does that in my opinion and therefore I think it should not be deleted. Narwaro (talk) 09:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• After reading Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process, I am interested in the points the nominator has to add to this discussion and whether they think this article cannot be improved to meet the necessary criteria. Narwaro (talk) 09:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Why we have the notability requirements there isn't the signficant coverage in reliable secondary sources needed to establish notability and source a full article. If such sources don't exist, the article cannot be improved to satisfy the inclusion criterea for Wikipedia. It may be that at some point in the future this topic is covered for example in books or reviewed in reliable secondary sources online, and then if WP:GNG is satsified this article can be recreated. --Pontificalibus 13:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but I disagree. Per concensus there seems to be the mentioned secondary source and there are many "unreliable" sources stating the very same in unison. To mention WP:WHYN: With a reliable source there should be enough information available to write a full article, not just a single paragraph, which it is. I do not think this can be added to another article. If you disagree, please point to sections that you cannot verify. In reply to the last point: Please apply common sense here. It is highly unlikely for a piece of software like this to be mentioned in a book, like almost all similar cases. There simply are very, very few "reliable" (i.e. not selfpublished or similar) published books on software. To add to this, I often have no problem finding a dozen reliable, published sources for something like a village but an article like this may get 80 views per year. This article has about 100 views per day, which is more than the vast majority of articles as it seems. I think it is more appropriate here to recognise that there are inherently few reliable sources for this category of article and it would be better to evaluate all facts rather than blindly enforcing strict policies. I urge someone familiar with the matter of this article to comment on this last point. Narwaro (talk) 21:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete on account of subject failing the notability criteria of Wikipedia. Irrelevant justifications are invoked above for non-deletion: In reality, it is not enough by itself that an article might be "useful"; self-published sources are null and void as evidence of notability; and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate listing of information, where users find everything under the sun. Without proper attribution, texts do not make it. Or eventually get deleted. -The Gnome (talk) 20:09, 25 January 2019 (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.

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:54, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evoma[edit]

Evoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No sources found to support notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:54, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 18:43, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Falls way short of WP:NCORP. There are a few references but are brief or unreliable sources.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete since subject fails WP:NCORP. Sources are non existent or dead. Article created by a very dedicated account. -The Gnome (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2019 (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.

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 keep. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:38, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stacey Muruthi[edit]

Stacey Muruthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Is this guy really notable? Coverage is WP:ROUTINE and goes on about two protégés (who are not notable), how he played club cricket for 45 years (unremarkable in cricketing terms at amatuer level), how he played minor matches outside of the scope of WP:CRIN, an unreferenced quote saying how good he is, and then goes on how the guy has a day-job. Not at all stand-out. Fails WP:CRIN and by extension WP:GNG. StickyWicket (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment when this was nominated before, it was closed as Keep though no reason was given by the closer, so unclear exactly what the reasons were. The External Links that look like articles that may confer notability under WP:GNG are dead and I can't find them in Wayback Machine. Spike 'em (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've update 2 of the External Links based on the information provided below. I don't know how significant The Strait Times is, but there certainly seem to be multiple articles which mention Muruthi in detail, so he passes WP:GNG for me. Accordingly, I've changed this from Comment to Keep. Spike 'em (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete it is high time we put these crazy cricket bios in check. We need a much higher threshold for notability in cricket.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Tend towards delete - if enough could be found to come close to meeting GNG then I'd be perfectly happy to retain this, but I think it's difficult to justify that level of coverage just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll admit I know nothing about cricket, but he doesn't seem to meet the standards set for notability. Playing any sport for 45 years is worth of tip of the cap, but doesn't make him notable. Don't see the coverage needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable per coverage, and sources. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE and more specifically WP:CRIN. MarkH21 (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCRIC. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I don't know if anyone who has commented here so far has done a WP:BEFORE search (if they have they haven't made it clear), but I found several articles, e.g. Straits Times: "Stacey Muruthi, who made his debut for the national team at the age of 16 and went on to play for the country for 32 years until 2001", "He's one of Singapore cricket's favourite sons. But in a few years' time, national cricketer Stacey Muruthi could be given another tag as one of the founding fathers of the future national senior team", Singapore Star: "Singapore’s captain Stacey Muruthi shared the limelight with Malaysia’s captain Suresh Menon to lift the Grimberg trophy.", so not just someone who played cricket for a long time, but someone who played for the Singapore national team for 32 years, some of that time as captain, which even for a relatively minor cricketing nation, together with the national newspaper sources, suggests he is notable enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. These sources and coverage are WP:ROUTINE and the matches are outside the inclusion guidelines of WP:CRIN. Minor matches at amateur level aren't deemed notable. You might take part in the donkey derby for 32 years, but it doesn't make you notable. StickyWicket (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think they go beyond routine coverage, and he played in the country's national team, and you're comparing that with a donkey derby? --Michig (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, when those matches are minor and quite clearly fall out of the criteria of CRIN. Besides that, it's a useless article that tells us virtually nothing encyclopedic. StickyWicket (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is poor, this is something that can be dealt with through editing. --Michig (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand why you say he fails WP:NCRIC. The article is not written to show notability against the WP:NCRIC guideline, but includes the information that he "was the national captain in 1976, 1979–1989 and 1994". The WP:NCRIC guidelines state that cricket people qualify as the subject of an article in Wikipedia if they have "appeared prior to 2005 as a player or umpire in an ICC Trophy final". ICC Trophy redirects to ICC World Cup Qualifier, where Teams' performances shows that Singapore played in 1979, 1982, and 1994, when this man was the Singapore national captain. So the games he has played in are most definitely covered by WP:NCRIC, and he meets WP:NCRIC. Apart from that, WP:GNG is not an extension of WP:NCRIC - subjects don't need to qualify for a WP:SNG before they can qualify for WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment @RebeccaGreen:, you've misunderstood WP:CRIN. He never appeared in a final of the ICC Trophy (Singapore have never reached one). Prior to 2005 matches did not carry List A status and were classified as minor matches. The inclusion for cricketers having played in a final prior to 2005 was the match being the decider for who would qualify for the world cup. So the games he played in are most definitely not covered by WP:CRIN (I helped come with the criteria). You won't find any other players who appeared at any of those ICC Trophy competitions outside of the finals. This is why Category:Israeli cricketers, or Category:Gibraltarian cricketers are empty - because despite playing at most ICC Trophy's, the matches were not notable. Besides that the article is a lot of "oh he's this and he's that". StickyWicket (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, keep due to meeting WP:GNG. The digitised Singapore newspapers show that he was covered in over 275 articles, in 16 of which his name was in the headline. He does not need to meet a specialised guideline before being assessed on WP:GNG. AfD is not about the quality of an article, but I disagree with your assessment of the article. All of the content relates to his cricket career. "A useless article that tells us virtually nothing encyclopedic" that just happens to tell us who the national captain of Singapore cricket for 12 years was? Even if your cricket guideline has determined that no games below final level prior to an arbitrary date are notable, he meets WP:GNG because of the significant coverage of him as a player and captain at national level in Singapore. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Those who considered WP:GNG and thought he did not meet it might like to look at NewspaperSG [4]. Pinging Blue Square Thing and Sandals1. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't read most of those articles - it won't let me unless I'm at a particular library. I'll note initially that some are adverts, sore summaries etc... Of the summaries I scanned through and the few articles I could read, some looked tangental at best and I couldn't see anything that really falls under SIGCOV - which is the same situation when I looked at other articles in The Straits Times - lots of passing references but nothing that I would consider to have been significant. The same is, I'm afraid, true of the three links above as far as I can tell. The more significant coverage might be there. I think it can be for cricketers who don't qualify in terms of the sorts of matches they've played (and, for what it's worth, I think there are plenty of examples where cricketers who have played matches at the sort of level we usually look at don't qualify under the GNG). But I can't find it. I've certainly seen biographies with more significant coverage deleted.

All of which is very frustrating, but I'm really not sure whether or not we have someone here that passes the GNG. If there's a way to write the article in such a way as to show that then that'd be great, but until then I think I still tend towards delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree that he does not meet CRIN, but does pass GNG. A conversation for another time and place, but is there any reason why Div 6 of the World Cricket League since 2007 is presumed notable (this division features the 23rd - 28th best non-ODI teams), but the early ICC Trophies are not (featuring the top 16 such teams)? Spike 'em (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote directly from WP:CRIN. Subject must have

1. appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level;

2. appeared prior to 2005 as a player in an ICC Trophy final,

3. appeared since 2005 in at least one match in any of the ICC World Cup Qualifier, Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier, ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier and ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier competitions;

4.appeared as a player in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above; or

5. appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20, Global Qualifier, or Regional Final. -The Gnome (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, notability for sportspeople are often funny, Wikipedia:Notability (sports) in a nutshell states "An athlete is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition", some editors may say that any games/competitions that a nation's cricket team is involved in is "major" so that being the captain of that team is notable, other editors do not, but then it also states (in para 1) - "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or (my emphasis) the sport specific criteria set forth below." looking at no. 1 of WP:NCRIC - "1.Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level", so if Muruthi had played in a match at the top level within Singapore (requiring a substantial source of course) rather than captaining the national team he would be notable? of course this is all irrelevant if he meets WP:GNG (as the "keeper" say but the "deleters" deny), anyway, this is why i don't get involved in too many sportspeople afds as they can be quite confusing:) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The highest domestic level in modern cricket is seen as being first-class / List A cricket, which is a status now conferred upon competitions by the ICC. The league in Singapore has not attained this status. He has played in games for Singapore that if they happened today would qualify him, but the 2005 cutoff rules them out. Spike 'em (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike 'em:: One of the problems is that that's not what CRIN says. It's how most people tend to interpret it, but going purely on how it's actually written, someone playing in a national league of any kind could be argued to meet the criteria. It obviously needs rewriting, but, well, I've given up even trying to do that.

• Leaning to Keep for this one. While they may fail WP:NCRIC, I think other factors need to be looked at, including their lengthy career and the fact they've captained the national side too. The article demonstrates this notability at the moment. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons Lugnuts gives. There are hundreds of non-notable cricketer bios which I agree should not be kept, but this isn't one of them. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2019 (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.

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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. clpo13_(talk) 17:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Bhagat[edit]

Alexis Bhagat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

WP:AB needing citations and additional content since 2013. Article was first nominated through WP:SPEEDY in 2013, nomination cancelled but there have only been minimal additions (i.e. linking, categories) since. Questionable if it meets WP:BIO as sources are limited. I have not found significant additional sources conveying notability. Links to this article within the encyclopedia are also limited mostly to citations of a single book that was cowritten (coauthor does not have page). Does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:CREATIVE. Sdegennaro (talk) 16:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. Searches brought up a brief, 2011 mention, "The US artists Alexis Bhagat and Lize Mogel collaborated in a project that involved traveling around malls and other public areas in Sharjah with a mobile kiosk ...", but nothing to support notability. Rather the opposite, by 2016, it appears that he was working for a local community arts association in Albany, "Grand Street Community Arts is looking to raise $27,000 in July, said Alexis Bhagat, executive director.". But there is a vanishing tiny amount of coverage of this aspiring artist in searches.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:24, 21 January 2019 (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.

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. Consensus is that WP:NACADEMIC and WP:PROF are not met at this time. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:51, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ursula Reinstein[edit]

Ursula Reinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

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

With regret. I can't find evidence that this scientist meets WP:NPROF or WP:GNG. Ajpolino (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - For those interested in her publication record, per Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)#Specific_criteria_notes. According to SCOPUS she has published 6 papers, all apparently while in Brett Finlay's group. She is the first author on 4 of the 6. Those 4 are cited by 58, 41, 29, and 26 documents. She is a middle author on two papers, one cited in 89 documents and one in 26 documents. Per the average professor test, in my opinion this is well below the average number of papers and citations among microbiology academics. Ajpolino (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Her discovery was on the cover of The Journal of Infectious Diseases, it quite a notable scientific achievement obviously. Scientists are notable by their achievements, they don't do interviews and get written up in popular news media. Wikipedia isn't just about popular culture, its educational as well. She meets WP:NACADEMIC. Dream Focus 17:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:15, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• What name does she publish under? Xxanthippe (talk) 06:32, 13 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Scopus shows no publications under her married name. All the citations I mentioned above are under her maiden name Ursula Heczko. If she published under some other name now, I may have missed it. Ajpolino (talk) 20:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Found more than a dozen publications via Google Scholar authored and/or co-authored by the subject under her maiden name (Heczko), easily meeting WP:NACADEMIC. The subject meets WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 20:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Which category of WP:NACADEMIC does she easily meet? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 15 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Response and Comment - The 1st category of WP:NACADEMIC. The subject worked in academia in a post-doctoral position at the University of British Columbia, where she discovered a prevention for the colonization of e-coli E. coli, a notable academic achievement which prompted the cover article in The Journal of Infectious Diseases - a major publication with a national reach (if not internationally). Coupled with the subject's other scientific research, much of which is cited in other scientific national publications, plus she has co-authored her research in scientific peer-reviewed journals, including the American Journal of Physiology here, the subject passes WP:NACADEMIC. (Note: It is commonplace for those in academia and science to co-write articles with colleagues in their field and does not diminish their roles. Rather, it enhances their roles by having distinguished peers co-author with them.) Using her married and maiden names, I found two more sources and added them to the article. Based on the Wiki article in its current shape, my !vote remains Keep. The subject meets general notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 06:36, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings, AuthorAuthor. You wrote that you "found more than a dozen publications via Google Scholar authored and/or co-authored by the subject under her maiden name," in which case she's "easily meeting WP:NACADEMIC." However, nowhere in WP:NACADEMIC is there a criterion whereby numerous publications suffice. Otherwise, we'd drown under articles about persons who have simply published academic papers! Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, The Gnome. I mentioned the number of publications because at least one editor in this AfD commented that the number of publications authored by the subject appeared to be lacking. Thank you. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. So, as it turns out, the number of publications authored by the subject is not lacking. This still does not enable the subject to "easily meet WP:NACADEMIC," as you claimed. That's the point. -The Gnome (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I found only six publications authored by her on GS as part of a research group. Some decent citations (which is all that counts for notability) but not nearly enough to pass WP:Prof#C1 in this very highly cited field: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• Another comment - Sorry to pester. I don't have a vested interest in the outcome of this discussion either way, but I'd like to point out that I believe keeping this article on the grounds of WP:NPROF would be an unusually broad application of that guideline. The guideline is most commonly used to justify keeping or creating articles on professors whose work is highly cited (as a proxy for highly impactful). While Ursula Reinstein is an author on several papers, that work is not highly cited. Also she was not an independent researcher at the time, but was either a graduate student in Martin Reifinger's lab, or a Postdoctoral researcher in Brett Finlay's lab. To consider someone notable under WP:NPROF entirely for work done under the supervision of other scientists would be highly unusual. Or at least it's not something I've seen before. If we consider this level of academic impact to meet the first NPROF criterion, then we should consider clarifying this at WP:NPROF as nearly all professors at research universities and many postdocs will have a similar number/impact of publications. Also, having your work featured on the cover of a journal does not necessarily indicate unusually high impact (which is why we use citations as a proxy for impact instead). Last thing, @AuthorAuthor: you mention meeting WP:GNG; I couldn't find any independent sources that substantially cover Ursula Reinstein. I may have missed some that cover her maiden name? Could you elaborate on why you feel she meets GNG? Thanks. Sorry for the long message. Ajpolino (talk) 22:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Note that the article was created by User:Dzreinstein who has also contributed substantially to Dan Reinstein and was informed about Wikipedia's COI policy on his talk page four years ago. PamD 09:41, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not have enough citations to pass WP:NACADEMIC #1, the only one that would be relevant. I find no other coverage of her at all, so nothing to meet WP:BASIC either, sadly. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:43, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination, since subject does not meet WP:NACADEMIC #1. As PamD pointed out, the contested-article's creator appears to be the subject herself; her two contributions to Wikipedia seem to be two articles, this one and another about her husband, Dan Reinstein, in which almost all sources are papers written by Reinstein. The strong aroma of promotion only amplifies the case for elimination. -The Gnome (talk) 11:34, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I think the editor is more likely to be the husband - but either way there's clear WP:COI. PamD 12:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]