| Revision as of 17:28, 8 January 2021 editBobo192 (talk | contribs)Administrators116,300 edits I'd argue...← Previous edit | Revision as of 09:38, 12 January 2021 edit undoBobo192 (talk | contribs)Administrators116,300 edits Keep.Next edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| :::::WP:V comes first surely. Do you remember learning about ]? <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC) | :::::WP:V comes first surely. Do you remember learning about ]? <sub>]</sub><sup>]</sup> 17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::I'd argue "disruptive editing" consisted of putting AfD notices on articles at random rather than enhancing articles. But y'know. Each to their own. Exit, pursued by a bear. ]] 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC) | ::::::I'd argue "disruptive editing" consisted of putting AfD notices on articles at random rather than enhancing articles. But y'know. Each to their own. Exit, pursued by a bear. ]] 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' - So used to these happening that I think we've grown tired of !voting these days. ]] 09:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 09:38, 12 January 2021
Sajid Mohsin
New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- How to contribute
- Introduction to deletion process
- Guide to deletion (glossary)
- Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
- Sajid Mohsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
No coverage found. Fails WP:GNG. I don't what is useful to read about in such articles. Are we here to read that how he scored 3 runs in the first innings and 4 not out in the second? What an achievement! Störm (talk) 22:37, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 22:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Comment - "Useful"? Facts are useful. That's why they exist. If someone wishes to come along and look for facts, there they are. If people decide to selectively remove facts, these facts become hidden. We're moving into existentialism now. You could argue that no facts are "useful", merely interesting. Bobo. 22:41, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
- Delete complete and total failure of GNG, which is our minimum inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Technically that depends which of the inclusion criteria on WP:N you wish to read and follow. And that's precisely the problem, that the criteria contradict each other as to whether subject specific guidelines are to override GNG. When I was first made aware of GNG, I was of the impression - and probably told - that GNG was to only be applied when a specific SSG could not be applied. Note that WP:N says "or the criteria outlined in a subject specific notability guideline." The basic guideline page to which we are taken, specifically says that subject specific criteria can override GNG. Want to get that changed? That's not something that can be achieved in a series of AfD discussions. Bobo. 16:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- No need. NSPORT (including NCRIC) does not override GNG; the first paragraph of NSPORT makes that quite clear. This status has been reinforced many times over. wjemather 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:N is the first thing we learn on our first day on the project. By using weasel words like "likely" and "presumed", NSPORT is basically a way to weasel out of guidelines that have been there from day one. Words which serve absolutely no purpose other than exclusionism for exclusionism's sake, based on flouting NPOV, which we also learn on our first day on the project. I thought we were supposed to avoid weasel words. Bobo. 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:V comes first surely. Do you remember learning about WP:Disruptive editing? wjemather 17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- I'd argue "disruptive editing" consisted of putting AfD notices on articles at random rather than enhancing articles. But y'know. Each to their own. Exit, pursued by a bear. Bobo. 17:28, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:V comes first surely. Do you remember learning about WP:Disruptive editing? wjemather 17:16, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- WP:N is the first thing we learn on our first day on the project. By using weasel words like "likely" and "presumed", NSPORT is basically a way to weasel out of guidelines that have been there from day one. Words which serve absolutely no purpose other than exclusionism for exclusionism's sake, based on flouting NPOV, which we also learn on our first day on the project. I thought we were supposed to avoid weasel words. Bobo. 17:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- No need. NSPORT (including NCRIC) does not override GNG; the first paragraph of NSPORT makes that quite clear. This status has been reinforced many times over. wjemather 17:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Technically that depends which of the inclusion criteria on WP:N you wish to read and follow. And that's precisely the problem, that the criteria contradict each other as to whether subject specific guidelines are to override GNG. When I was first made aware of GNG, I was of the impression - and probably told - that GNG was to only be applied when a specific SSG could not be applied. Note that WP:N says "or the criteria outlined in a subject specific notability guideline." The basic guideline page to which we are taken, specifically says that subject specific criteria can override GNG. Want to get that changed? That's not something that can be achieved in a series of AfD discussions. Bobo. 16:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
- Keep - So used to these happening that I think we've grown tired of !voting these days. Bobo. 09:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)