Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arif Saeed

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. This is a fairly standard NCRIC vs GNG dispute. As NSPORTS specifically requires GNG to also be met, and there isn't a clear IAR exemption case made here, and there is a very clear consensus that GNG is not met, deletion is the appropriate outcome. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arif Saeed[edit]

[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)

Nothing notable in coverage about him found. Non-notable short career, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NCRIC having played in List A cricket. Looking a bit further into his time at Wanstead in the Essex Cricket League, he was the first XI player of the year in 2005, and the leading wicket-taker in the league the year before. There's also this article at the Telegraph's website, despite being paywalled, the title is clear to see as "Saeed comes good to keep Wanstead top". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, they is nothing substantial in the Telegraph article – it's just a routine match report with passing mentions, and the content doesn't correlate with the headline at all; after conceding "56 runs and failed to take a wicket in 15 previous overs", Saeed "surprisingly" bowled the final over and the Gidea Park batsmen chucked their wickets away when only needing four runs to win ("excellent catches by John Chambers in the deep and the diving Akram in the covers"). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Has only played 3 List-A matches for the Essex Cricket Board which won't receive much coverage, but there seems to be enough from his minor county career and from playing for Wanstead for him to pass GNG. List of Essex Cricket Board List A players a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of Essex Cricket Board List A players. No significant coverage, only wide-ranging scorecard databases and passing mentions in club cricket reports, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps any trivial passing of NCRIC, which has proven a very poor indicator of suitability for standalone articles in cases such as this. However this arguably fails NCRIC, since he has not played at the highest domestic level – irrespective of match status, playing for a cricket board falls well below this standard and coverage is generally limited to scorecards. Redirect is an accepted ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:15, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's little significant coverage, and not enough for a WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer T·C 16:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should probably clarify my vote. There are five external links in the article. Four of them are to Cricket Archive statistics pages and the other one is to ESPN CricInfo. A fairly detailed BEFORE search brought up no further sources apart from the Telegraph, where he gets covered, but it's also a routine article about a local sports league. Even if we assume it's okay (it's not, really - if a local paper did a feature on me playing for my local club, I wouldn't be notable), there's not enough coverage here to get him past WP:GNG, which WP:NSPORT requires for biographies. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played List A cricket, meets WP:NCRIC. StickyWicket (talk) 10:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Reopened and relisted at request of RandomCanadian.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kieran207(talk-Contribs) 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note Obviously improper for me to !vote on this. Just noting, as I had pointed out, that NCRIC, being an SNG, is not a substitute for GNG; therefore future closers should take this into account (and also not close AfDs with a result, absent exceptionally poor reasons for one side, when the margin is 4-3...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:08, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia:Notability (sports) is clear that "meets NCRIC" is not a valid keep rationale if the subject demonstrably fails to meet GNG. I searched newspaper archives for sufficient coverage to satisfy GNG but didn't find it. ----Pontificalibus 07:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As current presence fails to meet GNG. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG is the minimum for including an article. There is a total and complete failure of GNG, we do not do articles sourced only to statistics pages. SportingFlyer has above demonstrated that there is no reason to keep the article and no justification for the keep votes that reflectively argue it in total disregard to the centrality of reliable sources to Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Essex Cricket Board List A players - no indication that this cricketer is notable enough for an article; sources do not address the subject in depth Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 16:22, 13 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.