Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Afzal (Multan 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 keep. Daniel (talk) 04:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Afzal (Multan 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 real expansion in 5 years. Nothing in sources found (5 years are enough to discover sources). Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:52, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:53, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "No real expansion in 5 years" is not a valid reason to delete any article. He passes WP:NCRIC having played in ten first-class and ten List A matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 10 FC matches and 9 List-A matches so passes WP:NCRIC comfortably, playing in multiple seasons in notable competitions in Pakistan. Just because the article hasn't be expanded in 5 years doesn't mean it's a valid reason for deletion as Lugnuts states. He played in just under 25% of Multan's FC and List-A matches in the period he played for them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's the potential to redirect to Multan cricket team as a valid WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only sources listed are statistical directories. It's probable sources here, if they exist at all (they don't clearly exist for these competitions) aren't online, but as it stands, he fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:49, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that any sources that exist are likely to be offline- Pakistani newspaper reports, for example. Your comment illustrates really effectively why I disagree with using WP:GNG for professional sportspeople- it drives a heavy bias towards players who have played since the internet came into existence, and a heavy bias towards players who have played in anglophone countries. Neither of these features is desirable. That's why WP:NCRIC is clearly the better and more appropriate notability standard. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Thank you DevaCat1, this is a point I've been trying to drive home for ages, but which has been reaching deaf ears. StickyWicket (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with such assertions is that, in all those years, not a single such source has ever materialised. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which if anything speaks volumes about our failure to attract editors from Pakistan. Our achilles heel has always been how Anglo-centric we are. StickyWicket (talk) 23:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article, created by a sockpuppet, possibly eligible for a G5 with no intervening edits, that hasn't had a GNG-qualifying source or even a substantial edit made since it started. There's been over five years - when's the next AfD going to be when no more sources turn up? SportingFlyer T·C 23:17, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer that's below the belt and reeks of desperation to get rid at any cost. Hardly 'sporting'. StickyWicket (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not desperate or below the belt, just completely frustrated with the total lack of source analysis. Not a single keep !voter here has identified a single source that passes WP:SPORTCRIT (the sources in the article are all statistical databases) or has identified sources which might exist apart from claiming they might exist. It clearly fails WP:GNG, and nobody has countered that argument. SportingFlyer T·C 11:17, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep easily passes WP:NCRIC with 10 first class and 10 List A matches. Lack of recent updating is supremely irrelevant. See also my comment above. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:46, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 20 matches at domestic level is an easy pass. And with 20 appearances, it's highly likely coverage exists in Urdu/Punjabi sources. StickyWicket (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Failure to meet GNG is more persuasive than a presumption of meeting GNG afforded by a SNG, Further discussion warranted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I understand that articles that trivially pass the SNG should not be given a 'free pass' but someone that has played 20 matches at the highest level of their sport surely is notable enough to warrant an encyclopaedia article Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 20:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for the reasons of those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 22:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - once again, stretching desperately for deletion rationale. "Article has not been edited in five years" is not rationale for deletion. Bobo . 09:39, 27 March 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.