Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aftab Ahmed (Sargodha 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 delete. Hog Farm _Talk 15:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aftab Ahmed (Sargodha cricketer)[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) 00:54, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 02:14, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 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; no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we lack the substantive, indetail coverage needed to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 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. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 16:54, 15 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.