Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taufiq Ahmed (East Pakistan 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. I seem to represent the third wave of individuals working through a set of these, along with the Keep and Oppose !voters. That's fine, so long as people are doing BEFORE checks and such.

More problematically, we have editors, who are experienced enough to know better, bringing significant conduct concerns into an AfD, including major aspersions, breaches of AGF and so on and so forth.

Much of this was several days ago, so I'll leave it there, but if you believe there is an ongoing issue in either behaviour or failure to meet AfD requirements, across multiple AfDs, please take it to their talk page or ANI.

With (finally) regard to this specific AfD, there is consensus that although it meets NCRIC it does not meet GNG. Several SNGs either specifically state or have acquired community confirmation that they are exemptions (stricter or less strict) from GNG. NSPORTS is not one of these and, indeed, specifically states an obligation to also meet GNG. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Taufiq Ahmed (East Pakistan 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)

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 07:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:09, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnpacklambert, you've made this assertion in many other AFD. IF special purpose notability guidelines didn't supercede GNG, for the narrow classes of BLP articles where they applied, there would be absolutely zero point in having them. Geo Swan (talk) 08:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator 112 of the last 120 edits Johnpacklambert made on January 19th are delete votes in AFD. I don't think they should be considered not-votes. They re-use the same handful of justifications, which I think makes them actual votes, not not-votes. Geo Swan (talk) 08:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lugnuts did the exact same thing and you are not objecting to his worthless defense of these junk articles. Wikipedia has no grandfather clause, so just because people but in the minimal lazy effort to create these micro-stub articles does not mean we have to show some deference to them. You show extreme bias in attacking me but acting as if Lugnuts provdied something of worth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per NCRIC. Geo Swan (talk) 08:26, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Another in the seemingly never ending parade of match scorecards disguised as biographies. The sporting notability guidelines state that article should be based on more than just purely statistical data. If NCRIC conflicts with that, then too bad for NCRIC. Predictably the conversation has descended to personal attacks on the nominator and erroneous claims that only keep voters are allowed to go Ctrl-C Ctrl-V with their votes. Reyk _YO! 16:12, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect to ~~List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers~~List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers. Subject trivially passes NCRIC, but by consensus that only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is totally unreliable for cricketers such as these (recent NSPORT discussion here) who have only played a single match. Fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:40, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers, which is presumably the redirect wjemather meant to select? Trivial pass of NCRIC but fail of GNG and this is an established solution in such cases. I can see the case for delete, but we're never going to use the article title for anything else, so we lose little by redirecting. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. Changed now. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:51, 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.