Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aysha Naushad Khan (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:25, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aysha Naushad Khan[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)

This article was perviously nominated here in 2014, with no consensus. Some T20I women's cricketers from minor cricketing countries don't qualify for inclusion under WP:CRIN, even after the ICC awarding all women's international sides T20I status. So why should this article be included? The matches Khan played were minor, carried no status, the coverage is routine, and the subject does not appear to have played cricket for nearly 3 years. StickyWicket (talk) 20:08, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP don't know much about cricket or this person, I just googled her and the first things popped up was her wikipedia article, maybe because it is hanging in there for a quiet a while, she doesn't have notability but according to cited sources she meeds WP:GNG but fails WP:RS. Being on wikipedia for quiet a long I suggest keep.SZ1999 (talk) 20:43, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article being the first result on google is absolutely no reason to keep it, nor is the fact its been around for a while. Spike 'em (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment SZ1999 is an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet. Striking their comment. Flapjacktastic (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG : Only one of the referenced articles actually covers her in detail, the rest are passing mentions / routine coverage / stats listings. Fails WP:NCRIC too by my reckoning. Spike 'em (talk) 20:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think she fails WP:NCRIC but just passes WP:GNG. This article is entirely about her, and I think the three paragraphs about her in this article might also count as significant coverage. The second article definitely addresses her directly. I'm not sure how in detail it needs to be to be considered significant, but for me it's got enough details. These are the only two articles I could find online that had more than a trivial mention of her (and they're also the two articles that were brought up in the previous AfD), so if either of these doesn't count as significant coverage then I'll change my vote to delete unless another source comes up. TripleRoryFan (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Spike 'em, well if isn't Daft. This time I'm BlackJack! Give it up Daft. StickyWicket (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the evidence provided by TripleRoryFan. Assuming, arguendo, that the coverage received in the two articles provided by TripleRoryFan is substantive, it still lacks the necessary "multiple" independent and secondary sources required to pass the muster at WP:BIO and WP:GNG. The subject also fails WP:NCRIC. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 21:09, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the arguments made by TripleRoryFan. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @TripleRoryFan's comment regarding significancy of the subject's coverage needs to be evaluated further in terms of WP:SIGCOV.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tymon.r Do you have any questions? 22:10, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on significant coverage: #1)- is just a note, #2)- "K.R. Nayar, Senior Reporter" = passing mention and is primarily about Dipanki Borcar, #3)- "Jai Prasad V. Rai, Sports Reporter": Bowled 'em over, coverage is GN Media publishing news reporting, "Gulf News Cricket", subtitled She's only 12, but the talented bowler has already caught the eye of coaches and the coaches are "her coaches" so the source, that includes interviews and opinions of her couches, is laced with positive advertising words, so has biased connotations over independent reporting, #4)- "Women's cricket could catch on in the UAE" = very passing mention: "while Aysha Naushadkhan, Petule Nadar & Humaira Tasneem chipped in with 1 wicket apiece.", #5)- CricNepal: Repeat of number 4, #6)- "UAE girls on song against Malaysia and Oman" = two instances of passing mention: "while Aysha Naushadkhan grabbed one to provide the finishing touch to victory.", and "Aysha Naushadkhan 1-7", #7)- "Humaira to lead U-19 team": Two passing mentions, "...and Aysha Naushadkhan (aged 13) is the youngest player in the squad." as well as a listing in the squad, "Aysha Naushadkhan", #8)- "NEPAL THRASHES UAE FOR CONSECUTIVE WIN": brief passing mention, "Thapa was caught by Kyna Vedhasinghe off Aysha Naushadkhan in the fifth ball of the sixth over", #9)- "ACC U-19 Women’s Championship 2010 - Results", Missed any mention of subject, #10)- Gulf News Cricket: "Sharjah honours top performers", Special awards include "Ayesha Naushad Khan" is passing mention, #11)- Gulf News Cricket: "UAE women’s cricket team win GCC championship" with the subtitle; "Subha bags best batswoman and Samiya wins best bowler of the tournament awards", missed any mention of the subject, #12)- dead link, #13)- "UAE women cricketers aim to strike hot at the GCC T20 tournament", missed any mention of subject, #14)- "UAE women beat Qatar to retain GCC T20 title", after Heena Hotchandani and Ayesha Naushad Khan bowled exceptional spells.. Same sentence mentioned twice and passing mention, #15)- "UAE women's cricket team win Gulf Cup": ...with Ayesh Naushad taking three wickets and Aysha Naushad (16) is Passing mention.

Conclusion: While there are references listed the sources are industry specific routine sports coverage that are mostly mundane, not specifically or primarily about the subject (passing mention), with only one coming close. Many sources are routine short-term interest sports coverage, mostly about the UAE team, that does not advance notability. Only the one source provides some actual biographical content that is advertising type and appears biased. As a WP:BLP this reflects more of a pseudo biography. Most sources that mention the subject uses the name as Aysha Naushadkhan.

These sources reflect that while there might be coverage, and they may be acceptable as a reference for article content, they can lack advancing notability. Otr500 (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per my above comments. I also have concerns of a cricket player, failing WP:NCRIC but supposedly passing WP:GNG because of one source, centered specifically on the aspect of playing cricket, as advancing notability. There cannot be a double standard. If the subject is not notable as a cricket player then how in the world can she be otherwise considered notable to pass GNG? As an inquiring mind I would also wonder what happened after the 2015 season? If a considered sports reported "fame" of two seasons in not fleeting then what would constitute enduring notability? Did she quit to fall off the radar from 2016 to 2019 when it appears she turns 19. Otr500 (talk) 09:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Otr500, I wondered too why she just vanished off the radar. This could possibly be her, which might explain where she's been for the last few years. But your evaluation of the sources is spot on, just passing and routine. StickyWicket (talk) 10:38, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When a list is made it is a good thing to try to create new articles. Sometimes the parent article is sufficient. When I considered a merge or redirect I saw the subject was not in the United Arab Emirates women's national cricket team, which is really about the 2018 ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier. This subject at least has more substance and references than those listed in the squad on those two articles (duplicates) because I saw one team member shows a T20I debut date of 7 July 2018, and a last T20I of 14 July 2018. Maybe there is more out there but this article has a lot more than what appears to be a 7 day wonder, or even the rest of those squad members, and still to me just does not have notability for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otr500 fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per Otr500. Good analysis. Would fail WP:GNG. --Hiwilms (talk) 10:48, 28 March 2019 (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.