Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashid Saleem

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. I know this is a controversial area, so I spent a fair bit of time reading the referenced discussions and RFC. It seems clear to me from the RFC that community consensus is now that the sports-specific guidelines (i.e. WP:NCRIC, etc) do not override the WP:GNG.

There is clear consensus here is that GNG is not met by this player. Not just by counting noses, but also by looking at the specific arguments; the arguments to keep are all basically, it meets NCRIT, which, per the RFC, isn't enough. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rashid Saleem[edit]

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

Contested Prod .Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played a single match with his contribution being insufficient and has retired now the subject technically meets WP:NCRIC as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired last played the 1 match in in 1983-84 thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline and as Per this discussion subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to.NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:18, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:31, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - we have a name and a single appearance on a scorecard. The Cricinfo profile (here) adds nothing to our knowledge - there are clearly not the suitable sources which show "significant coverage" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" required to meet the GNG. Given the discussion which the nominator references above, simply adding another database profile who's only existence rather than notability. As always, if sufficient sources can be found then the article can be re-created if necessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list of Gujranwala cricketers. IMO that's the way to treat players for whom only bare statistics are available. Reyk _YO! 10:19, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It has consistently been held that a single appearance at the highest level of a sport is sufficient for WP:N. The correct interpretation of "presumed" in WP is that it is considered to be the case, unless there is evidence to the contrary, for presumed notability to mean the subject is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not. In this case, no one has presented any evidence suggesting that the subject is not notable, given that he has played cricket at the highest level and meets WP:CRIN (see WP:NCRIC in WP:NSPORTS). Furthermore, there have been several precedents in which subjects like this one have been kept or where no consensus has been ruled (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination)).

For those with their own interpretation of WP:GNG, the introduction to that guideline states unequivocally: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and it is not excluded under the WP:NOT policy". "Either...or..." means what it says and WP:NSPORTS is one of the listed SSG. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee 03 12:00, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets the relevant SNG and therefore there is a presumption that it can meet GNG if coverage is found. As with the others recently taken to AfD. Johnlp (talk) 22:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as no signs of meeting WP:GNG. We are not database site where should have article on every single cricketer. Greenbörg (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Gujranwala cricket team as valid search term – Per this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. Also, I will note that less coverage has to be applied for this article to be considered notable. Also fails WP:BIO1E. J 947^{^{^{( c ) ^(m)}}} 03:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric^{On leave} 16:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Additionally, J reminds us that WP:GNG is really paramount and applies well here. Ifnord (talk) 18:33, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to have articles on people, places, things and ideas that have received reliable sourced secondary coverage. One indiex listing a person in a long list of other people in the index does not rise to that level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it per WP:CRIN. See the discussion about WP:CRIN here. Greenbörg (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the RfC that is so often mentioned made a conclusion re: SNGs that the recent RfC on PROF has concluded is not true and that directly contradicts the text of WP:N, the guideline which the GNG is a part of and subordinate to. The text of N has not changed because there was no RfC on changing it, and an RfC that was only advertised as being about one SNG cannot be a backdoor way to change the most prominent guideline on en.wiki. The SNGs are in fact equal to the GNG as is made abundently clear by the overaching notability policy. NSPORTs does subordinate itself to the GNG, but it is important to remember that the GNG is only one part of WP:N. WP:NPOSSIBLE is also part of it, and passing NSPORTs gives that argument significantly more weight.
It is up to the participants in a discussion to decide how they deal with this tension inside the guidelines. I have no opinion on this specific case, but I did want to point out that there is absolutely no basis in the actual notability guideline (WP:N) to accept the call to ignore those arguing from an SNG. If the participants of this AfD decide that failure to comply with the GNG is a reason to delete the article, that is acceptable under both NSPORTS and N, but deciding to retain per NSPORTS and NPOSSIBLE is also entirely based in policy, and I urge the closer to discount arguments that claim otherwise. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have not seen where SNGs are equal to GNG. After reading related RFCs, my conclusion is there was no solid agreement on that point. The main thrust seemed to be that SNGs do not supercede GNG. Equality remains a question. However, please notice that SNGs seem foundationally anchored in GNG. For instance: NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines says,
All information included in Wikipedia, including articles about sports, must be verifiable. In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline.
So, it says GNG is a requirement. It also says the page is bright-line guidance on whether a subject is likely to meet GNG. So, upon noticing the word "likely" -- this means "possibly" meets GNG, "a good chance" of meeting GNG, or "could" meet GNG, and so on. It does not say automatically meets GNG even without significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Also, again, it comes back to GNG as the bar that must be met when it says "likely to meet" GNG.

It doesn't say "likely to meet SNG". Then this section points out the necessity of meeting BLP if the subject is a living person:Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements for those types of articles and "living persons" is directly linked to WP:BLP. So it seems, the NSPORTS SNG is undergirded by GNG and BLP.

Lastly, "likely to meet GNG" is shown to be true when, after a certain length of time, there is significant reliably sourced independent coverage available. Also, it is shown to be false when there is not enough reliably sourced independent coverage. Then, the "Basic criteria" section in NSPORTS seems closely correlated to GNG and WP:BASIC. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:31, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right from WP:N (emphasis mine). The GNG is but one part of the entire notability guideline. It is not a guideline on its own. Even the GNG is a refutable presumption of inclusion, and subordinate to policies such as WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:BLP. The SNGs are refutable too, and thats what those arguing to delete based on the GNG are trying to do.

The sports guideline does subordinate itself to the GNG, that is correct, but even the GNG is covered by the totality of WP:N, which is much more complex in terms of its inclusion and exclusion criteria. I'm not arguing for the inclusion of this article. I'm just pointing out that the SNG-based arguments are equally as strong to the GNG-based one when you consider both the quoted section above and WP:NPOSSIBLE. I don't care how this debate turns out, but I did want to point out that the idea that the relationship between the GNG and the SNGs are as simple as people on both sides of this AfD are making them out to be is false. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was speaking to that very line in WP:N - presumed to merit an article if it meets either GNG or SNG. I was trying to contrast the criteria, which perhaps I accomplished or I did not accomplish.

Maybe another way of saying it is - if it meets SNG criteria, then do not delete, until, as you point out, WP:POSSIBLE (or WP:BEFORE) is satisfied. Nominators with experience do satisfy this criteria all the time. Just try taking an article to AfD without satisfying WP:POSSIBLE or WP:BEFORE. If sources are out there, and the nominator hasn't considered them, this will be pointed out, sometimes without civility. I think that is a sure thing. Sometimes good faith attempts yield no results, yet others will point out the errors if they are there. So, I do agree, WP:POSSIBLE applies to both - GNG and SNGs. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article has been up since 2009 and if all that has happened in 8 years is nothing but the one or two sentences that have no reliable sources, then it probably is not Notable. No one is working on it or expanding it.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 05:40, 21 October 2017 (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.