Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teesra

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 --JForget 22:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Teesra

Teesra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article has no sources, and after my own research I find absolutely no evidence whatsoever for its subject's existence. Opinions of experts in cricket welcome. Here follow my extended reasoning: This article has existed for quite a long time. It started off by saying that it was a delivery currently in creation by Saqlain Mushtaq. It was later updated with an example of a "Teesra" delivery - however, the example at no point credited the delivery as being a Teesra; the author of the edit was the one to reach that conclusion. To me this is clear original research. The supposed delivery has never been seen, and was announced around 4 years ago. It should also be noted that there is clear reason for a bowler to exaggerate or lie about a new delivery, and clear reason for a fan to do the same. There is absolutely no reason for there to be an article on a delivery that is very likely fictitious. For those without understanding of cricket, I hope you see that there are absolutely no references to this delivery existing and support this because of that simple fact. I hope my lack of knowledge with regards to deletion process does not damage this AfD. Apologies if any errors made during this process. Wikiyuvraj (talk) 20:23, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. The article is false. --MisterWiki talking! :-D - 20:35, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No or not enough notability. Also, per MisterWiki.--RyRy5 talk 22:39, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. A quick Google News search confirms that this is not a hoax or original reasearch - it has been written about by several of India's and Pakistan's leading English language newspapers. However I would agree that this looks more like typical spinner's mind games than a real delivery, as no other bowler seems to have taken it up. I would suggest that the article be merged with Saqlain Mushtaq. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:31, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. This word has been used in newspapers and forums for a few years (in fact our article dates from April 2005) but doesn't seem to have spread beyond Saqlain Mushtaq. I therefore agree with Phil Bridger that the term is more appropriately defined in Saqlain's article than in its own article. But I feel that the word is already described sufficiently in that article, so I vote to delete. Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:41, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per above. AVand^talk_contribs 21:23, 3 April 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.