Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Akram (Rawalpindi cricketer)

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

The result was redirect to Rawalpindi cricket team. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:55, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Akram (Rawalpindi cricketer)

[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) 20:05, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as with a huge range of other AfDs, the correct standard is not WP:GNG, but WP:CRIN which is passed by virtue of playing both first class and List A cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:10, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Rawalpindi cricketers or similar Has played both FC and List-A cricket, but only 3 total matches and no coverage. Using similar precedent to that used by WP:NFOOTY when a player has 1 or a few matches and no coverage, they are deleted/redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in FC and LA matches, meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete none of the sources provide the significant coverage which is needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. A very trivial pass of an extremely permissive SNG is not enough to outweigh the lack of significant coverage. Verifiable, so a merge/redirect to a suitable list would be the usual WP:ATD, but non exists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:00, 5 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.