Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rick Eyre

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 delete. – Sceptr e ^(Talk) 10:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On closer review, I will relist this AfD due to meating delete votes. Sceptr e ^(Talk) 11:37, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Eyre

A not notable blogger. Seems to be a friend of one of the admins who removes PRODs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stansi (talk • contribs) 08:12, 4 April 2006

Stansi, please read WP:AGF and, to understand why PRODs may indeed be removed at will, WP:PROD. That said, weak delete as I don't really consider running a website (even a notable one) as a sufficient qualification for notability. Sandstein 10:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Borderline case, but on the right side IMO. Is reasonably known in the internet because he was an editor in Cricinfo for six years and ran the daily Cricinfo 365 which was popular in the late 1990s and early 2000s (discontinued when the internet boom got over and cricinfo cut costs). Currently, among other things, runs the site Cricketwoman.net which is probably the most informational site solely dedicated to women's cricket. The site seems to be down at the moment, this is the from the google cache from the last week Tintin (talk) 10:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not worth an entry. Gillyfan 11:03, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Note that all five of Stansi's edit and the only two of Gillyfan's are related to the deletion of this article. Tintin (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps so, but this still looks like a NN blogger to me.
  - Comment. Since the main notability claim here is based on his pact activities, the argument that his current blogging isn't notable is something of a red herring; even if correct, it's irrelevant. The fact that author X's last six books have come from vanity presses is similarly irrelevant if his first six came from legit publishers and met audience requirements. Monicasdude 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. RGTraynor 15:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Rick Eyre is a buddy of TinTin, who seems hell-bent on retaining his entry, despite the fact that Rick Eyre was fired from Cricinfo and hasn't worked on that site for years, he now does nothing other than maintain a couple of niche blogs. If there's one rule for blogs and websites on Wikipedia then it should be applied consistently. TinTin should also act objectively.
Keep, "notable long ago" implies notable, as Wikipedia subjects generally don't have a shelf life. Otherwise most all of those dead folks should go, too. Monicasdude 14:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a website doesn't make someone notable. Brian G. Crawford 14:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nn blogger, possible vanity. --Ter e nc e Ong 15:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article asserts no real notability. JIP | Talk 15:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO... wasn't even notable in the past IMO. Also bolded Tintin's opinion to make life easy on the closing admin.--Isotope23 16:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and Gillyfan's too...--Isotope23 16:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, Eusebeus 16:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete definitely nn, shouldn't have been listed in the first place. Is not notable now and probably never was. 11:30, 5 April 2006
Delete nn. --Khoikhoi 05:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Bolta 5 April 2006 (UTC)
Keep numerous hits on google for this person. Definitely notable. Kukini 16:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. Numerous Google hits means nothing, anyone can start multiple sites and find themselves coming up frequently on search engines. --AjaxBed 14:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)vote actually added by 203.143.64.20[reply]
Comment I hope the closing admin would take note of the accounts that appear only to vote here . Tintin (talk) 02:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse your comment. --Gurubrahma 06:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: is notable enough. --Gurubrahma 06:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn. --Earn I hope the closing admin can also recognize TinTin trying to build up a case for one of his friends and questioning those who vote for his friend to be deleted 17:39, 9 April 2006 (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.