Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 September 9

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. Tone 06:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Víctor Martín Pérez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Deleted in Spanish Wikipedia. Promotional. See https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consultas_de_borrado/V%C3%ADctor_Mart%C3%ADn_P%C3%A9rez Vexations (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - there's a couple of good sources, but I'm not sure you could consider them significant coverage. He seems to be a run of the mill motivational speaker. Bearian (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Promotional bio mainly built around having published one book. Mccapra (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2020 (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.

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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:20, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NDB Capital Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The cited sources are (1) a press release, (2) coverage of the press conference announcing the launching of the bank, and (3) a photo caption. The Daily Star also covered the press conference, ostensibly independently of The Financial Express, but their story is strikingly similar, suggesting that neither performed any real analysis, just repeated the company's presentation.[1]

Searches of the usual Google types found one independent article about the government threatening to penalize the bank (and 21 of the country's 54 other merchant banks) for not managing any IPO for two years. There's also one article about an industry award, Euromoney#The Euromoney Awards for Excellence, that is made to sound as if it's hot stuff.[2] But every year about 1,000 banks self-nominate for a couple hundred awards by the organization. Editor JzG has written, "Most industry awards exist as an excuse for a night out on expenses." These awards look like a prime example of that.

I'm not seeing significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. Self-promotion is not the route to notability. Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 22:37, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2020 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seaga Manufacturing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No notability per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lack of independent reliable resources. Fails WP:GNG. Priyanjali singh (talk) 10:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Lots of references in passing connected to vending machines, but not to this company. Fails WP:CORP. I suspect a close connection between the author Mrfreeport and this organisation. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No qualty RS here to substantiate this company. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2020 (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.

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. Tone 06:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moll Ranch, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

At least this time I can find some map that has a dot on it labelled "Moll Ranch", but the containing publication doesn't otherwise mention the spot, much less describe it, and we are thus left with another case where Durham is the sole testimony to the nature of the place. There was/is another Moll Ranch in a different county which provides most GHits. Mangoe (talk) 22:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete A ranch not a community. Reywas92^Talk 17:43, 11 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:12, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Exner (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Her so-called claim to notability was allegedly being the “mistress” of Kennedy. This is no Monica Lewinsky situation. Nothing eventful or notable happened here. Does the article not say this alleged affair is based on her own account? Trillfendi (talk) 21:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't see a rationale for deletion. Wikipedia notability doesn't care if the affair was made up or not. In addition to the Washington Monthly source, this Vanity Fair piece is clearly substantial coverage of her. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason to delete is lack of independent notability. Your idea of notability is only contigent upon two other people she may have had sex with. And now a story about her son finding her in 1990, is a claim of notability? Trillfendi (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Her "claim to notability" is WP:BASIC: "significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." HouseOfChange (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. She had a by-lined obituary in the New York Times. The nominator failed to present a policy-based deletion rationale. It doesn't matter why she's famous, only that she is famous. pburka (talk) 16:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One of those policies being WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINHERITED? Trillfendi (talk) 18:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep. Massive level of roughly contemporaneous coverage. No way the nom did anything resembling an adequate WP:BEFORE search. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 03:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing in the so-called Before showed anything resembling an act of notability. It all came down to the idea that she may have had sex with a gangster and a president who ended up being shot in the face a few years later. Trillfendi (talk) 18:30, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• KeepI agree with the above editors, given her place in history, the RS, and the fact there was a TV movies made about her life, she is clearly of note. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:37, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SNOW. True or false, she's gotten significant coverage over the years. Bearian (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The nominator seems to have misunderstood our notability guidelines. WP:GNG and WP:BASIC don't require anything like an "act of notability." Instead, we require evidence that independent, reliable sources have taken notice of the subject. Obviously they have. pburka (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say that, then half of the other articles for deletion discussions show otherwise.... Just being reported on is not what makes notability (at all). But hey, disagreement is what makes Wikipedia what it is. Trillfendi (talk) 19:06, 14 September 2020 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of tennis clubs in Victoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I'm not convinced that this topic has gained enough independent coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN. I also think WP:NOTDIR applies. Spiderone 20:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 20:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 21:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Clearly fails WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 21:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delete I agree, a clear WP:NOTDIR example. Mangoe (talk) 22:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fails WP:LISTPURP, WP:LISTN, and WP:NOTDIR: no notable entries, no notability as a group, and we don't even have tennis club or Category:Tennis clubs. The closest we have seems to be Category:Real tennis venues (and I don't know how close that is), and there apparently aren't even enough of those to merit separate lists by country let alone by federated state. postdlf (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. for reasons given above by others. Real Tennis is different from normal tennis and rather old and special, so the venues are likely to be notable. --Bduke (talk) 07:19, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Very clearly fails WP:NOTDIR. Seems to be a project of someone with too much time on their hands. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom and per all of the above. No evidence of notability. None of these clubs have articles. Listcruft at its best. WP:LISTN, WP:NOTDIR I am baffled about the fact that this managed to stay here since 2008 (!) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Coincidentally, I live in Victoria, but I don't see the rationale for a page on the Tennis clubs here. Its just a random list. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:38, 12 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Fenix down (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2021 in association football (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article consists mostly of gazing into a crystal ball into a sea of red. This is not really a useful guide to future articles on association football. It was already draftified once and moved back to article space anyway.

No objection to draftifying again, provided it stays in draft space until it has more substance, but moving it back to draft space unilaterally would be move-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 20:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - for a topic of this nature, so soon, WP:CRYSTAL does not apply. GiantSnowman 21:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We've had these articles going back years, why are you nominating this one? They always have good cited sources for WP:GNG so this nomination is just stupid. Govvy (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep per above. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:26, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep No valid reason given to delete. There is no possible to eliminate the article, then recreate it in a few months from now. Just let it be. Dream Focus 14:24, 13 September 2020 (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.

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. Tone 06:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hart Electric Membership Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The subject does not meet WP:GNG and there does not seem to be any significant coverage in independent sources. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Modussiccandi (talk) 20:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:33, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don’t see coverage in RIS, although there may be historic newspaper coverage I can’t see. Mccapra (talk) 03:06, 16 September 2020 (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.

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. Tone 06:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Declaration by Joseph de Arimathea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No reliable references - I can't even verify the book exists. The references are a dead blogspot blog, and another book I can't verify exists. Based on the author's creation of Apocrypha of the Virgin Mary, I have no idea if the book was supposedly written in modern or ancient times. There is no reliable content here at all. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete After a great deal of looking around I have found the actual text referenced, which in English (rather than, apparently, Spanish) is referred to as the "Narrative of Joseph of Arimathea". New Advent has it here and Bart Ehrman talks about it in his blog here. It may be worth an article, but this one is worthless and has the wrong name. Time to break out the WP:TNT. Mangoe (talk) 22:45, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Firstly, thank Mangoe for providing the research. There are unsubstantiated claims in this article, which does not examine New Testament apocrypha as a phenomenon, nor does the article give any sources for the mss, nor the original language, and no exegesis of the document. The whole thing is likely to be a fake. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:28, 10 September 2020 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypha of the Virgin Mary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not appear to be a notable book. Written in 2003, despite the article author attempting to portray it as New Testament apocrypha. No secondary sources about the book - the two references are to websites selling the book. No coverage found in English or Spanish. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I managed to find the book on Amazon, and that is about it. Appears to be some sort of devotional work, judging from the paucity of negative reviews; if it were true NT apocrypha being written about things would be different. There is a real Gospel of Mary but given its nature he is unlikely to have written about it. Mangoe (talk) 22:27, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if there was enough sourcing to justify the article, I would re-write the opening. The word "false" is too strong. It is written in a preseumed historical voice, a technique employed in a slightly different way by R. Lanier Britsch in his book Nothing More Heroic on the 19th-century efforts of missionaries for The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in India, written in the voice of A. Milton Musser.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:02, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: This is a devotional treatise based on the Gospel of Mary, and not the apocrypha text itself. Sources discovered (and translated) show there is no neutral point of view in this text. It is devotional, not academic. --Whiteguru (talk) 12:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The book which appears to be the subject of the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:BKCRIT. Though various entries about the book appear on Google, almost all of them are from vendors. Modussiccandi (talk) 16:59, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I could see very few references to thia book, needs more RS to substantiate notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SNOW. To add a few nails: this is a WP:FORK and WP:SOAP. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2020 (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.

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kel'Thuz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article does not indicate how subject is notable per WP:GNG, WP:BIO, or WP:NMUSIC. He was involved in a court case and a minor social media scandal but that does not reach the level of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. ... discospinster _talk 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The article is dependent on sources that are about other people, in which this guy is either mentioned briefly or (in at least one case) credited for some podcasts used by the journalist for confirmation. He was involved in a dispute that got some minor news coverage in Poland, but that does not get him beyond WP:BIO1E. This Wikipedia article tries to use his momentary media notice to promote his music career, for which there is definitely no coverage in reliable sources. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:38, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No RS substantiating notability - fails WP:NMUSICIAN. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:45, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:MILL, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:SOAP. Wannabe activist and sometimes musician. Bearian (talk) 18:21, 14 September 2020 (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.

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. Tone 06:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tania Pleitez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Has been in the CAT:NN backlog for over 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:51, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NAUTHOR. One of her essays is reviewed here and, unless I'm mistaken, she's also a poet and the subject of this paper: "La poesía de Tania Pleitez Vela: memoria y rememoración". pburka (talk) 20:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... and move to Tania Pleitez Vela. pburka (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. On a promising road, but for now I'd say, overall, she does not pass the average professor test of WP:NPROF, nor (analogously) an average author/poet test. Somewhat low number of citations, even considering her low-cited field. Plus, I'd expect more than two or three secondary sources talking about the work of a poet/author to establish WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR, even if they were blog posts, and I am not convinced she is notable in this sense yet (WP:TOOSOON). Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 23:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I don't think the fact that the citation counts are low is particularly meaningful; she's not a scientist, and I would expect them to be low in this subject, even for notable people. It would be a fallacy to say that many notable people have low citations and hers are low so she's notable; I think we have to look elsewhere instead. But, looking at reviews, she appears to have no books of her own. We have (as listed above by pburka) a single review of a volume edited by someone else that has one of its 12 chapters by the subject, and another published article specifically about the subject's poetry. I don't think the first of these counts for much at all. The second one seems a lot more significant to me, and comparable to a single published book review, but it's still only one source, and it's the only such source I found. I don't think it's enough for WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, or any of our notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I think might be a case of WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:07, 13 September 2020 (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.

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. Tone 06:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Joe Aviance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. No evidence of being a musician. Seems to be only WP:1EVENT. Fails WP:BIO. No indication of being notable. scope_creep^Talk 19:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A few things have changed since his first AfD in 2018, but not much. He is a longtime musician whose works were never noticed in the reliable music media. He got some significant but momentary coverage for his weight loss achievements ([3], [4]), but I think he is still stuck with WP:1EVENT. This article is written with a focus on his old music career and new motivational speaking career, indicating that he is trying to use his momentary media notice for his weight loss as promotion for his other ventures. He can do that all he wants, except on Wikipedia where there are notability standards. ––DOOMSDAYER520 (TALK|CONTRIBS) 15:33, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A few references here, but no particularly inspiring RS, and some of the references are his own website. He has won a few awards, but that doesn't seem to be enough to establish notability. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:48, 12 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. There is clearly no support for the nominator's arguments. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farhan Asghar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Individual played in 22 first-class and 10 List A matches in his 10 year career. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: while CRIN has some issues, and clearly does not have the full support of the community, the subject of this article played 32 matches at the highest level of the domestic game in Pakistan. During his 13-year career at that level, he appeared for six different teams. Additionally, we have some information about his lower-level cricket: his score of 410* ranks as around the 48th highest recorded score in the history of the game. The nominator suggests that "Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist." But that is part of the point of an SNG. From what I can see online, I feel very confident that there would be local, offline coverage of this player, but I acknowledge that I do not have access to that, and can not demonstrate it. Ultimately, he well exceeds the bar set by CRIN, and any likely future iteration of it. Harrias ^talk 08:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep His fairly extensive career, playing a significant number of FC & LA matches over many years, and the sources unearthed already would seem to suggest a notable cricketer for which further sources are likely to be around. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: CRIN makes mention of suitable first-class domestic tournament; I find that the banking tournaments in Pakistan fall into this category on a domestic level.
• Keep as per above CreativeNorth (talk) 15:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played multiple notable matches over a 10 year career. Also doubt this editor is new. StickyWicket (talk) 22:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment can someone please link to the sources which have been found?Iitianeditor (talk) 02:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:49, 12 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:09, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raheel Ameer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Individual has played in 15 matches, including one where he was the man of the match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Lugnuts, a notable cricketer. Priyanjali singh (talk) 10:59, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A first-class cricketer with a strike rate of 96:66 --Whiteguru (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Lugnuts. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:35, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts, more than satisifies the CRIN requirement. Such a shame that there seems to be so little effort to expand cricket coverage these days. StickyWicket (talk) 08:47, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable cricket player, as above. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:50, 12 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. There is clearly no support for the nominator's arguments. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Nizamuddin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He has played in 12 matches, across all three formats, in his career. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Records show he has played First Class, List A and T20; a good showing in T20   --Whiteguru (talk) 12:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has played in multiple domestics CreativeNorth (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played 12 matches across all formats. StickyWicket (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:04, 11 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zeeshan-ul-Haq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He played in six first-class matches for Multan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Nice strike rate against Multan, 72:72, a good first class cricketer.   --Whiteguru (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep six first-class matches means he easily passes WP:CRIN CreativeNorth (talk) 16:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Only six FC matches played over a period of 10 weeks, contributing very little in any of them – averaging under 10 as a specialist batsman, so very much not a "good first class cricketer". No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:00, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:03, 11 September 2020 (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.

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. If a reasonable redirect target exists, a redirect may be created, but no such target has been demonstrated here. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tasawar Abbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: - unlikely to have further cricketing notability, only playing one List A match.   --Whiteguru (talk) 12:53, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Karachi Dophins cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 08:51, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Karachi Dolphins. Meets NCRIC but it's difficult to presume notability in the absence of any qualifying coverage. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:03, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would not be an appropriate redirect since he is not mentioned there, and to do so would violate WP:UNDUE. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:06, 11 September 2020 (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.

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. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adnan Suleman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: - unlikely to have further cricketing notability, only playing one List A match.   --Whiteguru (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete-- Meets NCRIC but it's difficult to presume notability for this player at the dusk of his career. Better hold off on a standalone article until some actual sources are found. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:58, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Islamabad cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2020 (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.

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. Anyone can create a redirect if the suggested target page is created. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agha Shariq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:00, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: - unlikely to have further cricketing notability, only playing one List A match. Out for a duck!   --Whiteguru (talk) 12:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just one FC and one LA match played, contributing very little in either. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to lists of Islamabad Leopards and Hyderabad (Pakistan) cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 22:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meets NCRIC, but it's difficult to presume notability in this case, and the subject seems to be around retirement age. Better hold-off on a stand-alone article till some supporting sources are actually found. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:54, 11 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniyal Mansoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:19, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played in six first-class matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Lugnuts. Also it is funny how this doesn't show up in a WP:BEFORE which further shows that the article passes WP:GNG CreativeNorth (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a routine match report it is entirely reasonable to discount such sources when performing a WP:BEFORE check. More concerning is that articles are still being written exclusively from statistical databases (routine coverage), without finding other sources (significant coverage) that would more robustly support notability claims. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:54, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Played several first-class matches for several notable teams. StickyWicket (talk) 08:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:49, 11 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Zeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played in six first-class and three List A matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lugnuts from what I understand, this doesn't establish notability. Only sources which talk about the person in detail and are inpendant of him count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are correct. The presumption of notability offered by WP:NCRIC on the basis of appearances has proven very unreliable where few matches have been played (hence progress at WT:NSPORT on removing it), so must be disregarded. Sources must be found that offer substantial coverage of the individual beyond routine & indiscriminate statistical databases in order to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:SPORTBASIC, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are incorrect. The notability has been meet by playing in those matches. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, only the requirements for a presumption of notability offered by WP:NCRIC has been met (which is unreliable at best). More is required to confirm notability, i.e. substantial coverage in reliable source independent of the subject (indiscriminate cricket databases such as cricinfo/cricketarchive do not count). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, they meet the notabilty. They are not indiscriminate cricket databases, infact, they are quite the opposite, as any per any dictionary will tell you. THe bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Lugnuts. Passes WP:CRIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeNorth (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:CRIN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The consensus from this RFC is that no subject specific guideline supercedes GNG, specifically sport (including NCRIC), and arguments must go further than bare "meets SNG" assertions. Ideally, articles such as these would simply be merged into lists, but those lists do not exist in many cases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As per previous editors, passes WP:CRIN. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. There is clearly no support for the nominator’s arguments. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:39, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Siddiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This guy has played in 20 first-class matches, scoring a century too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per Lugnuts. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Yes, passes WP:CRIN. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:52, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played more than enough matches to satisfy WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 19:34, 14 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. BD2412 T 00:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farooq Saleem (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just two FC matches played, contributing almost nothing in either. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:CRIN. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:41, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:56, 13 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farrukh Rizvi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just five FC matches played, contributing very little in any so seems unlikely that sufficient substantial coverage would have been generated. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. (Note: updated after double checking links) _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:29, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:14, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Played five first-class matches. StickyWicket (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 5 first-class matches as per above. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:30, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low — 5 is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:55, 13 September 2020 (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.

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 no consensus , defaulting to "keep". The outcome of this discussion hinges on the weight given to WP:NCRIC. There has been enough doubt cast on its utility that I am not comfortable unilaterally declaring it sufficient to overrule the concerns of those !voting "delete"; however, it is still a guideline, as things stand. A community-wide discussion about this SNG, and any others frequently seen to be too low a bar, would seem to be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farrukh Nawaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar appearance criteria. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:13, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Meets NCRIC but it is difficult to presume notability in absence of any coverage beyond stats. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:18, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Faisalabad Wolves cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 11:43, 13 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kashif Sattar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played in six first-class matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as Lugnuts says are six first class matches not notable? CreativeNorth (talk) 15:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts. StickyWicket (talk) 19:38, 14 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Najam Abbas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played in nine first-class and five List A matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:24, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with Lugnuts and passes WP:CRIN CreativeNorth (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:10, 11 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Jan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played in 11 first-class and 11 List A matches, scoring a century and three 50s in his F/C career. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if you had performed a WP:BEFORE then you would think at least 1 of 6 sources would come up? Anyway he also meets WP:CRIN and as per lugnuts. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:09, 11 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raja Farzan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings and twitter, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:CRIN and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has played in the 2020 Pakistan Super League, and was given a domestic contract for this season by the Pakistan Cricket Board. Note he is sometimes listed as "Farzan Raja" as per this search on Google. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he has played in the PSL which is definitely notable and passes WP:GNG. Also forgive me if I am wrong but looking at your edit history you nominated this and 3 other pages for deletion within the space of 2 minutes which doesn't suggest to me you performed a WP:BEFORE on all of them. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Lugnuts and CreativeNorth. StickyWicket (talk) 22:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:08, 11 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman Akram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Just one LA and one T20 match played, contributing very little in either. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep satisfy's WP:CRIN CreativeNorth (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:06, 11 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nauman Khan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:10, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the individual meets the notability requirements. The bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has played multiple first class games which satisfy WP:CRIN CreativeNorth (talk) 15:39, 10 September 2020 (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.

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. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Europa Group Towers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of notability, written like a commercial, likely copied from the developer's website. Strainu (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, what was finally built instead is called 20th Residence and only has 11 stories. See https://goo.gl/maps/zfosrx8VrPsXWMGK9 Strainu (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete fairly unremarkable 21-storey building that does nit seem to have attracted any architectural attention.Mccapra (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasim Mustafa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he played 6 first-class games in addition to 2 List-A games so he easily passes WP:CRIN CreativeNorth (talk) 16:12, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:19, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep played in six first-class matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CreativeNorth and Lugnuts. StickyWicket (talk) 11:42, 13 September 2020 (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.

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 no consensus , defaulting to "keep". The outcome of this discussion hinges on the weight given to WP:NCRIC. There has been enough doubt cast on its utility that I am not comfortable unilaterally declaring it sufficient to overrule the concerns of those !voting "delete"; however, it is still a guideline, as things stand. A community-wide discussion about this SNG, and any others frequently seen to be too low a bar, would seem to be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasim Zahoor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It's difficult to presume notability; meets NCRIC nonetheless. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per UTBC. The individual meets the notability requirements. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to List of Lahore Lions cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 11:41, 13 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Gulfraz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has played in multiple first class games so not a marginal case.CreativeNorth (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria – as such, arguments based on this criteria should be disregarded. Only three FC matches played over a period of one month with three unremarkable performances, so unlikely to have generated coverage. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep played in multiple matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has played in numerous notable matches. StickyWicket (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "played in matches" only proves existence, not notability. Also, the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:58, 13 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sameer Akram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep He's played in 6 first-class games this is not a marginal case. Also quite funny how you did not see this and this when performing a WP:BEFORE. Anyway this further supports the claim he passes WP:GNG. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:08, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is consensus (at WT:NSPORT) that the number of matches played is a very poor indicator for presumed notability, especially when that number is low (six is low). Having said that, I'm inclined to believe it is likely the required coverage (somewhere) could exist of someone who has played at FC level over several seasons, even if the total number of matches played is low. Also, neither of those match reports constitute significant coverage of the subject (he is only mentioned in passing) so could reasonably be disregarded when doing a BEFORE check. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Any fabled consensus at [insert talk page here] should be codified to WP:NCRIC before AFD is asked to follow suit. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep played in six first-class matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:47, 11 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. When someone who passes a SNG is reasonably challenged, as happened here, it is helpful if those advocating keep actually do more than reiterate that they pass the SNG. However, there is broad enough consensus here that despite the absence of sources there is still clearly a keep consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taimur Siddiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per Nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he has played 9 domestic games so it is not a marginal case which easily passes WP:CRIN and other sources are right here and here for WP:GNG CreativeNorth (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CreativeNorth GNG clearly mentions that the sources have to be in depth about the subject. The sources don't say anything about the person in question at any depth.Iitianeditor (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok while I do disagree about this, as I think you are contradicting yourself by not letting Cricifno and Cricket archive count and also WP:GNG saying "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source". Anyway I think we should just agree to disagree. However he has played 9 games. With your objections to WP:CRIN mainly being that it is too inclusive, 9 first-class games clearly show he is notable. CreativeNorth (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • CreativeNorth Yup, let's agree to disagree. Thanks for being polite and civil which I'm afraid a lot of people seem unable to follow. Iitianeditor (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Individual has played in nine matches: two List A and seven T20 fixtures. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:CRIN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria – as such arguments based on this criteria should be disregarded. Only two LA and a clutch of T20 matches played, contributing very little in any of them – averaging under 10, presumably as a specialist batsman, so very unremarkable and unlikely to have generated coverage. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it apparently meets WP:CRIN. Baseball's WP:NBASE trumps the GNG, and that's fine and that works, and we end up with articles about people who we don't even know their first name. Cricket's a big deal so I suppose for cricket its the same. As a practical matter, that's how people treat it. If you want to tighten up CRIN that's a different matter. Change CRIN, don't nominate articles that meet it. Also BTW the majority or our X million articles do not meet the GNG, which is a guideline IIRC.

As always, a point to consider is: "For people searching on the string 'Taimur Siddiq', rather than taking them to this article it would be better to show them nothing, because _______." What goes in the blank? You'd want a compelling argument here.

Granted, in this case, very few people access the article -- fewer than .5 a day, which rounds to zero. I think a reasonable question to ask at the CRIN page is "this guideline is supporting articles for which the daily readership approximates zero. Is this worthwhile? Would a series of mere lists be better for players with this level of notability?" But that's an issue with the guideline, not this page in particular. Cricket is important enough that, if cricket enthusiasts are controlling the page and are too liberal in their criteria, a WP:CENT WP:RFC would maybe be in order, since cricket is pretty important.

On the other hand, we do have many articles with approximately zero readership... probably hundreds of thousands at least, articles like Mitrulinia (a fungus of extreme obscurity) and Pisgah, Virginia and so on. So maybe deleting cricket players of mind-boggling obscurity, and not funguses or populated places of mind-boggling obscurity, is just snobbery. Another point is that the First Pillar ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia") says right off "Wikipedia... incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias". Is www.espncricinfo (the main ref for the article) a specialized encyclopedia? It says here that it is. Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus from this RFC is that no subject specific guideline supercedes GNG, specifically sport (include NBASE), and arguments must go further than bare "meets SNG" assertions. Ideally, articles such as these would simply be merged into lists, but those lists do not exist in many cases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC has no such consensus. The headcount was about 18-17 in favor of the proposition (that no subject specific guideline supersedes the GNG, at least for sports), which is a tie, and the strength of argument was also such that an informed and disinterested person would have to aver that that's more or less a tie too. That can never be incontrovertibly proven of course, but it's certainly a reasonable conclusion. If somebody closed it as "proposition accepted" they made a mistake, or supervoted. That's OK; we're human here, with human failings. That doesn't mean we have to pay any attention to somebody's mistake (or supervote). Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? – "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline." Probably also worth remembering that consensus is not a headcount. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played nine matches at the highest domestic level. Besides, “nobody views this page” isn't a reason to delete, it's more a problem with how readers are directed to it from other pages. StickyWicket (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in this discussion at NSPORT is that appearance count is not a reliable indicator of notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nine FC/ListA appearances is more than enough to justify a presumption of notability. Johnlp (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD requires notability to be more than presumed. This recent AfD would suggest 15 matches is not enough to confirm notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that one should not have been deleted, and made my view known there. Johnlp (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2020 (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.

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 no consensus , defaulting to "keep". The outcome of this discussion hinges on the weight given to WP:NCRIC. There has been enough doubt cast on its utility that I am not comfortable unilaterally declaring it sufficient to overrule the concerns of those !voting "delete"; however, it is still a guideline, as things stand. A community-wide discussion about this SNG, and any others frequently seen to be too low a bar, would seem to be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Moutabar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A non notable Pakistani Cricketer.Priyanjali singh (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you need to mention him being Pakistani? Does the fact that he is Pakistani make him non notable CreativeNorth (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CreativeNorth, I wouldn't take offense to it. Likely the mention that he's Pakistani is just descriptional filler. I'll do that to since it's hard to write a good detailed nomination rational sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played five domestic games, it is not a marginal case it easily satisfies WP:CRIN and here's your non directory/stats listing to satisfy WP:GNG CreativeNorth (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires "significant coverage" – match reports with passing mentions do not meet that criteria. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Only two FC and 3 LA matches played during one season, contributing very little in any of them. No substantial sources available beyond routine match reports and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...}
• Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep played in five matches in Pakistan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "played matches" only proves existence, not notability; and this recent AfD confirms that even 15 matches is not enough for a reliable presumption of notability. Also, the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Played in five FC/ListA matches. Johnlp (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It seems like the notability standards for athletes like this one are changing and for good reason IMO. Since Wikipedia isn't a directory. Which is all this article is. He clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines though and I think they are the important thing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Played five FC/LA matches, meets notability in that respect. StickyWicket (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:ATA. Please elaborate and provide proof of notability, i.e. reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Despite passing NCRIC there's no indication of notability. Nigej (talk) 10:35, 22 September 2020 (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.

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 keep. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Shahbaz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets NCRIC, and the subject is only 27. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:33, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep played in three first-class matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:36, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "played matches" only proves existence, not notability. Also, the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:04, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passed WP:CRIN, fairly recent FC career too, so likely sources in Pakistan exist for this player. StickyWicket (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]