Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abbas Shah (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 delete and redirect to List of Karnataka cricketers. Daniel (talk) 04:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Abbas Shah[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)

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Multiple articles (in other languages) regarding his cricket performances, published within the past 2 weeks. The consensus of the previous AFD was clearly keep, and nothing has really changed regarding his notability. ~RAM (talk) 08:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Seems unlikely there would be recent coverage of a one-match cricketer from the 1940s. Perhaps you could cite these sources? Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:02, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to List of Karnataka cricketers. This is a match report masquerading as a biography. Subject 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 absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:58, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is no where near meeting GNG. It is time we stopped treating people as notable for being in just one match.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 15 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. Over the entire breadth of these articles on these cricket players I have seen no substance from those saying we should keep other than them pointing to the past. I do not look at past AfD's because all I am concerned with is what is presented as evidence now. No one has convinced me these players pass the criteria we are to measure EVERY article by. SNG's are fine to presume notability. Presumed notability can be rebutted with facts. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What "facts" are you after? These articles provide nothing but facts. No needless puffery telling people what hairdresser's they went to or where their dentist lives. And yes, every single other sporting project runs to their own SSG. Why is cricket the only sport under scrutiny? (That second question is a serious one). Bobo . 17:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
When the others are presented I will say the same thing for them. SNG's even state they "presume" notability and if you look up the definition of "presume" on Wikipedia it says it can be rebutted by factual evidence based on the notability guideline. SNG's can be used to create an article but do not guarantee notability or that the article should be retained. That measuring stick is found at WP:N in the first few sentences. This article was brought to AfD. I made my determination based on the criteria we are instructed to use in confirming notability. The subject failed based on that criteria. Doesn't mean I have to like it. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 17:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with trying to justify bypassing subject specific guidelines is that every single argument becomes suspiciously political... As for WP:N, let's quote directly: "It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right". Or. And that's where the problem lies. (This isn't a personal criticism by the way). The fact that WP:N itself states that SNGs can be followed proves that GNG is worthless and is based on nothing but pushing POV. Bobo . 17:40, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but SNG's state it "presumes" notability but doesn't guarantee it. Presumed notability can be rebutted with evidence based on the only measuring stick we have, "receives significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources" is our way to measure. I explained above what each means according to their definition on Wikipedia. This is what can be used to rebut the presumed notability presented by the SNG. I would never use an SNG to create an article based on what I know now but that's a risk you take. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:01, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Such is the problem with the word "presumed", and I have fallen foul of being complacent about this too. The word "presumed" has no meaning. And when it tries to, it is so woolly that it becomes completely meaningless in itself. None of the definitions on WK provide anything near the definition we use. The word "presumed" is nonsense and only exists to push POV. Bobo . 18:08, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NSPORT, which also governs NCRIC, is a guide to the likelihood of meeting the GNG; "the article must still eventually provide sources indicating that the subject meets the general notability guideline" (FAQ Q2). I think three and a half years since the previous AFD is more than enough time for sources to have been found if they existed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, the lack of any consistency in guidelines makes me more likely to treat all which attempt to push exclusionism, as completely meaningless and disruptive. Bobo . 18:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is established consensus on how the guidelines are (or should be) applied. Discussions, including recently/ongoing at WT:N (and an earlier RFC), make it clear that NSPORT is an egregious outlier as far as SNGs are concerned, so is treated differently. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:15, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So (honest question) NSPORT is an outlier in general - and not just CRIN? The one place where we can work to brightline criteria rather than making articles up for no reason? That seems like seven backward steps to me. As for the RfC which people continually point to, that's the most non-consensus discussion I've ever read. How anyone could have read any consensus into this debate is beyond me. Bobo . 18:23, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Presume most definitely has a definition, "suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability." A calculated risk with no guarantee of success. I take offense to your suggestion that I am pushing a POV by holding every article accountable to the notability guideline as it is written. In fact, my determination has nothing to do with my personal POV which you would know if you have read anything I have written in the past. The refusal of editors to administer the notability guideline evenly across every subject, project and article is more pushing a specific POV than anything I have said here. Nothing is every going to change here unless everything is treated equally within the parameters of those words which are very concise and direct. Subjectivity needs to be removed so we can evaluate and possibly make changes that will benefit the encyclopedia going forward. AfD's have become "mob rule" in a sense so I look at whether it receives in-depth significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent secondary sources. No POV, No politics, no opinion --ARoseWolf (Talk) 18:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Forgive me. I don't mean you specifically. I mean as a project, using the word "presumed" as an excuse to flout guidelines which are easy to understand by themselves. Bobo . 18:48, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for misunderstanding you. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at least a comprehensive List of X cricketers article exists in this case. As I've said all along, given what is going on right now it seems strange that there was such resistance to the idea at first. Bobo . 10:10, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karnataka cricketers - only trivially passes NCRIC and we know practically nothing about this player; redirect per WP:ATD Spiderone 20:29, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karnataka cricketers per Spiderone. There is no in depth coverage and a technical pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG. As this seems quite a common name (500+ LinkedIn profiles with it), I wouldn't be opposed to a delete result on the grounds that someone's quite likely to create a rogue blue link about someone completely different at some point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:35, 23 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.