Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abid Ali (cricketer, born 1979)

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 redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan). SNG passes do not count where it is demonstrated that a BLP fails the GNG but a redirect to a list is always the best middle ground. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abid Ali (cricketer, born 1979)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Never had a prolific career, nothing much to write about. Nothing in coverage either. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Did have a prolific career, playing in multiple matches across all three formats (8 first-class, 1 List A, 2 T20 matches), so meeting WP:NCRIC. Worst case, as an WP:ATD, redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Has played 8 FC matches, 1 List-A match and 2 T20 matches suggesting a significant career that meets WP:NCRIC. Has played for two different teams so not sure a redirect is possible, but deleting somebody that's played 11 matches would be concerning, especially as a number of those matches, especially the T20's were in top level competition at the time. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:44, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan) is a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to List of Hyderabad cricketers (Pakistan). No significant coverage, only wide ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. The trivial pass of NCRIC, by virtue of playing a few matches for one of the weakest teams playing in Pakistani FC cricket at the time (so arguably not meeting the "highest standard" requirement of NCRIC), does not trump the GNG failure. Redirection is an accepted ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So why bother waste your time in expanding the article, only for 6 minutes later to come here to add your !vote for deletion? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aside from properly researching before !voting (unlike those who robotically handwave at NCRIC), I'll often take the time to expand articles that I see might have a possibility of being kept in order that they won't remain a one-sentence directory entry of an article – "x is a y cricketer who played for z" is really not acceptable. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree that this is a trivial pass, and there is nothing in any guidelines, WP:NCRIC or otherwise regarding the strength of team played for, rather than the standard of the overall competition. If you don't like NCRIC, and all the other sports notability guidelines, most of which are much more restrictive than for cricket, then that's a different conversation to whether this article passes the relevant criteria. I'd also question whether there are really no article references existing, rather than that you have found- you, and Störm, have good reading skills in Urdu, and checked Pakistani media sources, including hard copy? DevaCat1 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, due to the unstable structure of Pakistani domestic cricket, and with most of the best/notable players with the departmental teams, the relative strength of the regional teams is very relevant to the likelihood of significant coverage existing. And yes, I looked for sources in both Sindhi and Urdu. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing falls far short of GNG, which is the minimum to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 8 first class matches, plus both List A and T20 matches means a comprehensive pass of WP:NCRIC. Given the number of matches, there is almost certainly coverage which can be appended. Needs working on and improving, not deleting. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2021 (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.