Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shah Mureed

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. No current redirect target exists. Daniel (talk) 03:42, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shah Mureed

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage about them. Störm (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Quetta Bears cricketers or similar Has played 2 T20 matches, but no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:NFOOTY when a player has 1 or a few appearances but no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:14, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:39, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage, only databases consisting primarily of scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG. Trivially passes NCRIC, but that carries little weight when the matches are few, they are T20s, and they are for one of the lesser regions. Existing consensus is opposed to standalone articles for such players. No suitable merge/redirect target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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