Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emannuel Bawa

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. ✗plicit 11:47, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Emannuel Bawa[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Cricketer who fails WP:NCRIC, having only played at an U19 level. Article was prod'd, but the prod was removed without any reason. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they were all created by the same editor, who removed the prod from all of them, and they have only played at U19 level:

And see also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrittunjoy Chowdhury, which was in the same batch. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 07:47, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nom. U-19 cricketers aren't generally notable enough to pass WP:GNG, and none of these look to be an exception to that. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:16, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all same arguments as I posted in Mrittunjoy Chowdhury AfD as noted above. Govvy (talk) 08:43, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all These probably all qualify for WP:G5 but the SPI has not been actioned yet... Spike 'em (talk) 08:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All fail NCRIC and while there is some coverage for some of them, none of it is anyway near enough to pass GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. I had a bit of leeway with this new user, allow them time to find their feet and learn the project notability guidelines and what not. But after having it explained to them that U19 cricketers are not notable, the user ignores that and goes ahead and removes the PRODs, plus there's the duplication of existing articles so they're not competent. Can we get rid of this user too?! StickyWicket (talk) 09:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@AssociateAffiliate: hopefuly gone soon, as they are a sock of a banned user. Spike has linked to the SPI report, above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:35, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: they're still creating Under-19 cricketers, despite being told not to. No hope for some! StickyWicket (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've logged this at WP:ANI to hopefully speed things up. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all - as has been said, they do no meet WP:NCRIC. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:22, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - they could all have been speedied, as being created by a sock of Vallabharebel. Perhaps an admin will do a speedy close. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:25, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - as has been said, they do no meet WP:NCRIC Aloolkaparatha (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2021 (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.