Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred le Roux


 * 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.  Schwede 66  17:29, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Fred le Roux

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

no sources my bad, there is source but it isn't significant. For those who want to keep per WP:NCRIC that needs an update.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 13:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep this is somewhat WP:POINTy: an AfD is not the best means to get an article updated. Sails through WP:NCRIC and 2 further references added. Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * my use of "update" was unfortunate. I suggested to update the guidelines (as in WP:NCRIC), not the article.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 15:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - As I've said over and over on WT:CRIC, if it's CRIN which is the problem - and this is what is being suggested here - suggest a way to fix CRIN based on brightline criteria. This has not been done despite half a dozen requests to do so. Bobo. 17:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep The subject played in a Test match for South Africa and easily meets WP:NCRIC. Not being updated/having enough sources is not a valid reason to delete an article.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:04, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comments as per the two participants, I am convinced that this can be kept per NCRIC. However, I will be starting to change NCRIC in the WikiProject.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 18:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A single user cannot unilaterally alter a guideline. This happens through weeks, months of interactive discussion - if at all. And please, if you wish to suggest an alteration to CRIN, do so with absolute values, not with flimsy "yeah but, no but" language. "A few" is weaselly and cannot be conformed to. Bobo. 18:28, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Test cricketer for South Africa and verifiably and reliably meets WP:NCRIC -- Ham105 (talk) 19:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 19:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Strong keep clearly the meets the criteria as set out in WP:NCRIC. Agree with Spike &#39;em above that this is POINTY. The nominator has provided no clear reason for deletion. The article has also been expanded and now has five references. If the nominator wishes to change the long established notatbily criteria for cricketers this is not the way to go about it. – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:05, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * can you guys stop attacking me? Focus on the discussion please. I am trying to what's right, not proving my point.  Immortal  Wizard  (chat) 01:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - surprisingly, IW, this specific conversation is much less about you than you want to believe. The article has now been expanded and referenced appropriately - you just now know that nominating something to AfD is not the way to go about it. My point about the alteration of CRIN criteria goes deeper than simply this one conversation. But this is neither the time or place to be mentioning that. Bobo. 06:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Obvious Keep once a BEFORE check is done. I'd also be amazed if additional sources, possibly in Afrikaans, didn't exist in South Africa newspapers of the time but have no way of checking them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why even waste time sending this to AfD - the man was a Test cricketer, playing at the highest level of cricket. The only reason I can think is to make a point. Perhaps try and expand article instead of verging on disruption. StickyWicket (talk) 15:17, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Test cricketer. Poor nomination. Johnlp (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Based on the nom's comment above, I think this can be withdrawn/speedy keep. I've dropped a note on an univolved admin's talkpage for further input. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:21, 21 January 2019 (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.