Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ambika Dutt Ranga


 * 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 although the article needs re-writing and contains some copyvio, it does assert notability (backed up by the source) by stating that he played football at international level, thereby passing WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  09:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Ambika Dutt Ranga

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Likely non-notable. I could not find any sources that establish notability, and only 31 g-hits.  Samuel  Tan  08:50, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable and 90% Copyvio of. Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: I never heard about this footballer before hitting this article; definitely he was not a notable footballer of India of his time. Google hits basically consist of the website linked in article, the WP article and its clones other than the bogus ones. --GDibyendu (talk) 09:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 11:29, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete Not notable and per copyvio  ·Add§hore·  T alk /C ont 17:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the copyvio problem is obviously significant, but that can be improved, hopefully. However, using Googlehits as a standard from a player from the 1930s and 40s is a ludicrous way to judge it. matt91486 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Nominator comment - Google hits is definitely not the standard against which an article should be judged for AFD deletion. The standard is here. But Google hits play a role when judging whether it is an article, I quote WP:DEL, "that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources", or an article "for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Unless the author supplies us with his own reliable sources, or one of us searches a library, the only sources we have are from Google; if eventually we can't find a reliable source anywhere (Google or otherwise), the article meets a reason for deletion. Just my two cents :) - Samuel  Tan  04:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * 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.