Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sanjeev Mundluru
He sounds like a really great kid, but this just isn't notable in the context of an international encyclopedia. - Cdc 00:03, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: Agree with CDC 68.239.230.157 00:40, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete darkskyz 00:47, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Repentent vanity authors apologising for the inconvenience, that's the kind of thing that makes working VfD all worth it. Still Delete though. --fvw* 11:55, 2004 Nov 27 (UTC)
- We all wish the author well and hope he considers further, more appropriate contributions. As the author has agreed to deletion, move to speedy delete (after allowing some time for other opinions). Geogre 14:58, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I guess this is deletable, but I do like to know , if the ninth best tennis player in Texas isn't notable, what about the fourth best and so on? Where do we draw the line? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 15:01, Nov 27, 2004 (UTC)
- In previous debates, we've been drawing the line, essentially, at no amateur athletes at all, unless they have an independent claim to notability. The reasons are kind of simple. Every state in the union * rankings * sports = a number you wouldn't believe. Add to that the fact that things like tennis give these rankings throughout the season, so you could have 12 different #1 tennis players in Texas a year (or more). Multiply these by every year of high school or age classification for the non-professionals, then all the college conferences and leagues. Now add to all of this the UK, Australia, New Zealand, Ireland, Scotland as a separate division, Wales as a separate division, then all the other Anglophone nations, then the non-Anglophone nations, and each of these will have multipliers about like the US. All of this for individuals who will not be sought independently of this one fact of their lives. Geogre 17:30, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)