Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saad Usman (2nd nomination)

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 speedy delete. G7 by Fastily. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saad Usman

[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)

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:18, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Consensus was to keep 4 months ago, nothing has changed. ~RAM (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing has changed since 4 months ago. CreativeNorth (talk) 11:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here), but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. We do not have to wait for inadequate guidelines to be rewritten before dealing with inadequately sourced and unsourcable articles. Moreover NSPORT (including NCRIC) does not supercede GNG. No sources beyond wide ranging databases. No suitable list to merge to. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ram an CN. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The result of the previous AFD was "no consensus". Those citing that result as a reason for keep should provide a valid rationale here explaining how this meets GNG. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep can't see any advance on the deletion arguments from the previous AfD. StickyWicket (talk) 13:21, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given NCRIC has been further discredited since that AFD, I still can't see any valid policy/guideline-based keep arguments here or there. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:26, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and still no actual contributions to the Cricket Project since then either? StickyWicket (talk) 15:50, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does the subject receive in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources? In-depth means the subject receives comprehensive and thorough coverage. Significant means the subject receives more than routine coverage but is sufficiently great or important to be worthy of attention. We all know what reliable, independent and secondary is. Multiple doesn't simply mean more than one, numerically. It actually means the subject receives separate coverage in more than one source as presented from different angles. If five reliable sources all report the same thing it is considered ONE source. The subject of this article fails WP:N in those regards when conducting a WP:BEFORE. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:57, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and comment - if what is needed is a discussion as to whether no consensus decisions on BLP's defaults to "keep" or "delete", this does not happen in one AfD. And it's not the brightline guidelines which have been discredited, it's the project, based on utterly woolly guidelines which push POV beyond all recognition, rather than instructions which are insultingly easy to understand. The fact that no other sporting projects receive this level of disruption, and that we were fine for nearly 16 years, is probably proof that what is being done now is nothing but disruptive, and that it's not the fault of those who have spent 16 years building the project up. Is it any wonder why there are so few of us left? Those of us who have been doing so, would quite like to see those who are currently protesting, help to build the project themselves. Bobo . 17:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a great impassioned speech, honestly, I appreciate it. The only problem with what you wrote is that it is wholly off-point, policy wise, and does not lend any substance to the discussion at hand outside of your personal opinion. I'd love to have a discussion with you on one of our talk pages about the issues anytime. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Article can always be recreated by people with access to actual indepth sources, not just databases. Fram (talk) 16:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Regardless when the last AFD was held, it is no longer acceptable to maintain articles about sportspersons who played 1 game of their sport. 100+ AFD precedences point to this, overruling a project guideline. Geschichte (talk) 08:36, 22 January 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.