Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zoheb Sharif

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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:16, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Zoheb Sharif[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 cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 15 FC career of which some matches were in the County Championship. There seem to be some interviews relating to him playing club cricket as well which is likely SIGCOV. There seems to be other bits in a basic search also. Not sure there's a suitable redirect if required here though as he played for a few different FC sides, despite Essex probably being the most prominent. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:19, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 15 FC matches, several in county championship, during which he scored two tons, along with a long county second XI career. Think it would be relatively easy to convert this into a proper article given a couple of hours and access to Wisden and press reports from when he was playing. Will pass WP:GNG given some work. DevaCat1 (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually think this article's a perfect example of why we're having such a difficult time with cricket generally. There's some coverage of him (in the sense that there are articles which decently mention him like [1] and [2]), but it's all of him as a club cricketer and don't really count towards notability. There's some coverage of him (in the sense of match reports) like [3], which is not an insignificant match to have played in. What's bizarre though is that there's almost no coverage of him online in his four games with Essex, in spite of him playing during the "internet era." Cricinfo has a blurb, meaning it's more than WP:SPORTCRIT this time at least, and there's the routine transactional stuff such as [4]. There's a couple match report from the BBC which includes him but it's brief and match reports don't count. I just find the whole thing quite odd, really - there really should be something beyond the odd match report? SportingFlyer T·C 22:10, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Something of a journeyman FC player. I'd be surprised if his 15 FC matches didn't warrant mention in Wisden, particularly given his two FC centuries. And yes, coverage of cricket can be a tad crappy. I often find more on obscure 1890s players than recent players, the standard of cricket reporting post-WWII became somewhat lazy and focused more on local club cricket. Where I am, a cricketer for Havant Cricket Club will receive more coverage in the The Portsmouth News than a county player for Hampshire, which given the difference in match standard and importance is shocking. More often than not, it won't be until an obituary appears in Wisden or other RS that more info becomes avaliable - even then since the 1970s Wisden has gotten somewhat 'slack' with its obituraries. StickyWicket (talk) 22:16, 11 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.