Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andrew Leipus

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 of the debate was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Andrew Leipus

Does being physio to a international sports team necessarily meet WP:BIO? --Peta 00:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BIO or perhaps redirect. An individual working for someone notable doesn't always make the individual himself is notable. Also, only 668 relevant Google results [1]--TBCTaLk?!? 01:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

"Andrew Leipus" physio gets 11,400 hits. Tintin (talk) 14:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I'm inclined to think this is worth keeping. The low google result is due to the fact that most articles about him were written in Hindi. Cricket is enormous in India, and when players got injured in the build up to tournaments, he would get quoted frequently. Further, articles about him note that Leipus had a great impact on the team, its fitness, and level of play. Leipus isn't any old phsyio, he's a physio who changed much of the thinking behind the Indian cricket team. Vickser 01:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Getting quoted from the media does not always merit notability. Also, due to the fact that doctors handle the well-being and health of their patients, technically all doctors for anyone notable can have a high impact on their life, thus do we really need an article for every single doctor that has had a notable patient?--TBCTaLk?!? 01:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Getting quoted frequently in the media as an expert would seem to me to pass the more notable than the average college professor test, and 11,400 google hits seems to pass the google test. I'm not saying that any doctor who's had a notable patient is himself notable, but I do believe Leipus's impact on the team and his extensive media coverage make him notable. Vickser 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge into Indian national cricket team. I don't believe his notability goes beyond the context of that organization. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC).
  • By this, I mean delete the article and put whatever useful information there is into Indian national cricket team. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and Merge per Ted--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry you're right. My vote should be merge and redirect.--Joe Jklin (T C) 03:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: Delete and merge is not a valid choice, as it violates GFDL. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment How does this violate GFDL? Delete and Merge simply means to take whatever useful information is in the first article and put it into the other article, then delete the first one. I'll change my wording to be more explicit. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:13, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Deletion of the original text loses the attribution from the original edtior, thus violating GFDL and copyright. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge as above Bwithh 02:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Did you even read my comment above? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Nope! On the other hand, "Merge" does not mean cut and paste as that rarely works. It generally means a significant degree of editing down and rewriting of the text is involved. Bwithh 03:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - notable enough - he was one of the people who wrote some report on the Indian team's fitness - one of which lead to coach Greg Chappell sending a heated email to the board calling for captain Sourav Ganguly to be dismissed - one reason being his abject physical state - Ganguly was eventually sacked amidst board infighting, allegations of scandal, board branch-stacking, and widespread rioting in his hometown of Kolkata, railways were blocked, state government threatened not to pay taxes, passed motions in parliament etc,et c. The styou can see how big cricket is in India. Blnguyen | rant-line 03:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Indian national cricket team, per TedE. --Coredesat talk 04:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge into Indian national cricket team. Not enough info for single article. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 06:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Verifiable and notable enough for mine. 18,300 Google hits including verifiable sources such as Cricinfo [2] and 10 Google News hits [3] gives multiple sources of reliable information. That in turn indicates notability. Capitalistroadster 07:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 08:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per those above. David L Rattigan 08:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, subject does not appear to meet WP:BIO criteria. Information could be moved to Indian national cricket team before close of AfD if anyone cares to.--Isotope23 12:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Very notable, through involvement in newsworthy events surrounding the Indian cricket team. JPD (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. Wikibout-Talk to me! 18:25, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Merge to Indian national cricket team which, as written, contains no mention of Leipus who asserted to be notable because of his work there. Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, notable. Yonatanh 21:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Capitalistroadster, this person is verifiably notable. Yamaguchi先生 08:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- Srikeit ^{(Talk | Review me!)} 10:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Certainly notable. Tintin (talk) 14:02, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep -- certainly notable. =Nichalp «Talk»= 14:16, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Those voting delete may not completely understand the significance of Leipus' tenure as physio, during which time he oversaw acomplete transformation in the degree of fitness expected of a member o the Indian national team. This has in many ways revolutionised the way the team plays, as well as being partly reflected in its changed ranking in the world. Simply put, he's a notable person, was extremely visible for the period when he was with the national team, and emminently encyclopaedic. Note he is no longer with the team, so it does not make sufficient sense to merge him into the team page. In any case, I strongly expect that as more India- and cricket-related articles are created, someone will attempt to recreate this in the not-so distant future. Hornplease 18:18, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Satisfies WP:BIO per "The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)" Also, please note that WP:BIO is not a hard and fast rule - it reads "This is not intended to be an exclusionary list; just because someone doesn't fall into one of these categories doesn't mean an article on the person should automatically be deleted." (emphasis not mine but in original) --Gurubrahma 18:24, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per evidence presented above. With note to nominator this is not the place to ask questions. If you aren't sure then you shouldn't be nominating for deletion, although other than putting the debate here you havn't given your opinion. Ansell 00:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, in this case it does. Silensor 22:25, 2 July 2006 (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.