Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Laeeq

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. While there is some consensus that he satisfies the SNG those suggesting that the SNG was met have not provided any sources exist and there is a consensus that he does not pass the GNG. As WP:NSPORT says meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. and so in this case there is a consensus to delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Laeeq

Mohammad Laeeq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing notable in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable cricketer, played in first-class matches per WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Has played 3 FC games and 6 List-A games, so just under the 10 discussed at WP:Cricket. While a online search brought back limited sources, his career and U19 international career makes me think that in offline and Pakistani sources there would likely be some significant coverage for him, enough for him to pass GNG, and so be kept. A potential redirect to Faisalabad cricket team is available if needed though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep played in multiple first class and List A games, and was in Pakistan U-19s. Passes WP:NCRIC. No details provided by nominator of what WP:BEFORE checks were undertaken before the AfD was presented. No details of whether those searches were in foreign languages, where it is particularly likely that sources for this subject would reside. No evidence of how the AfD fits with the WP:ATHLETE approach of being lenient with subjects residing outside the Anglophone sphere. No evidence provided to justify comment of "non-notable cricketer". This is nowhere near the appropriate standard or evidence base for an AfD. DevaCat1 (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Found very little coverage outside of the usual wide-ranging databases built on scorecard data, and only one of any substance, but just about enough to suggest more might exist somewhere. If would certainly be useful to be able to reliably verify his date of birth... _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:58, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Withdraw - please anyone uninvolved here may close this. Störm (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: First he was dropped out in Under-19 squad because of false date of birth given by him for consideration in team squad. In my search, I found national news website's articles who tells the story about why PCB dropped him from Under-19 tournament. Second article says about his selection in inter-region state team. He cheated PCB for consideration and that is why PCB dropped him when they had sufficient proof against him. Not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 9 matches at domestic level, plus his deception and sources about enhance his notability. StickyWicket (talk) 22:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. WP:NCRIC does not apply, because the article is sourced to statistical databases. With no significant coverage supporting the article, it fails the guidelines at WP:NSPORT (of which NCRIC is a subset).4meter4 (talk) 22:12, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Enough notable as he has played in first-class matches. Gold ★ ⁷⁸⁶ 13:40, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Interestingly, there is one article that's actually about him, though the article as a whole doesn't really provide SIGCOV! Most of the sources are statistical directories failing WP:SPORTCRIT, and I can't find anything else notable on him. The U-19 World Cup is a youth international tournament which doesn't really lend itself to notability unless there's clear SIGCOV. There may be a suitable redirect target. SportingFlyer T·C 12:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - All sources used in the article is a statistic database (except for one), which according to WP:SPORTCRIT cannot be used to establish notability. The one non-database source talks about him being dropped from the Under-19 Pakistani squad. Following that there aren't any other reliable sources I could find myself, there isn't enough to satisfy WP:GNG. Alternative, redirect to List of Faisalabad cricketers. RolledOut34 // (talk) // (cont) 00:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above strong arguments. The sources really are raw stats. — Alalch Emis (talk) 17:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per reasons above. Riteboke (talk) 08:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per RolledOut34 above. Most sources seem to come from the "Pakistan Cricket Cricket Archive". bop34 • talk • contribs 19:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are other mentions of him besides the stat databases, but they're just passing mentions. Until otherwise proven, I agree it lacks WP:SIGCOV. Uses x (talk • contribs) 20:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.