Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohamed Zarook

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. Randykitty (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamed Zarook[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)

Non-notable cricket. Nothing significant in searches. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 02:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC having played first-class cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moors Sports Club Has played 1 FC match, but finding sources was difficult, as has proved for other Sri Lankan cricketers. Sources may well exist offline or in Sri Lankan sources though. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with 1 or a few matches, but no coverage, is redirected/deleted, and a suitable WP:ATD exists here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another exceptionally marginal pass of a SNG sourced only to a statistics database. A search for sources brought up nothing. SportingFlyer T·C 22:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Meeting NCRIC was enough for the article's creation, now we have to actually justify the presumption of notability by meeting GNG -- which the subject does not. JoelleJay (talk) 05:07, 4 April 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.