Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ziauddin (cricketer)

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 merge to List of Pakistan Air Force cricketers. There is a relatively broad consensus, not only in this AfD but in several others, that sportspeople about which only a few match statistics are known should not be covered in separate articles but in list articles containing said statistics. Sandstein 05:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ziauddin (cricketer)

edit

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Ziauddin (cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A first-class cricketer from around 45 years ago, Ziauddin (or Zia-ud-Din) played one match. We do not know his dates or birth or death, meaning that we don't know if this is a BLP or not. We do not, in fact, know very much about Ziauddin at all. We don't know if he bowled right-arm or left-arm, fast or spin. We don't know if he batted right-handed or left-handed, if he was chosen because he was mates with the captain, or was prodigious at a lower level. The only sources we have are CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo, both of which give bare statistical summaries. Other searches reveal nothing of note. In summary, the subject does not meet WP:GNG. Although he does meet the very inclusive criteria set down in WP:NCRIC, as noted in the 2017 RfC that does not have precedence over the GNG. If a List of Pakistan Air Force cricketers existed, then a redirect/merge to that list might be appropriate. Harrias talk 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harrias talk 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Harrias talk 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Harrias talk 12:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was wondering if there were any more names to be discovered. I know we can't know for certain but I'm sure Ziauddin would have been the name he went by. (I'm not basing that on any kind of fact, by the way, just assuming). I've been reading through the 2017 RfC and it was an utter mess and I wonder how on Earth anyone found any consensus in it at the end of the day. Copying this because all it will be is the same comment. Bobo. 12:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have bundled this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanullah (Khairpur cricketer), but the fact that he played for Pakistan Air Force does give us a variable, in that he almost certainly was therefore a member of the Pakistan Air Force, though that hasn't helped with any online searches I've done. Harrias talk 12:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "They'll be dancing on the streets of Total Network Solutions tonight!" Bobo. 12:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Changed my vote after what Bobo said
An easy problem to fix. Scorecard has been provided. Please reconsider your vote since this is your only objection.. Bobo. 15:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Ziauddin" is Arabic for "light of the faith", and this sort of mononymy is certainly not uncommon amongst South Asian Muslims; consider also the more recent international cricketers Inzamam-ul-Haq ("joining together of the truth"), Misbah-ul-Haq ("lamp of the truth"), Imam-ul-Haq ("Imam of the truth")... you get the idea. It's really not just "the name he went by"; I'm certain that this was his full name. I don't think the comparison to Madonna, whose mononym is the exception to the rule in her culture, is apt for that reason. (For what it's worth, I myself have ancestors with names like "Sadaruddin" and "Abd-us-Sattar"). M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 20:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know - please forgive me, I was being ironic. Indeed, if these were the names they went by, then the very notion that we "don't know their full names" - or at least, most commonly assigned names - is nonsense. I'm assuming, therefore, that the same is true about Amanullah. Bobo. 20:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the relevance though? At no point did I suggest that we don't know his full name. I did query whether it should be Ziauddin or Zia-ud-Din, because while the article is titled Ziauddin, the article itself uses Zia-ud-Din. That wasn't a notability point though, just an aside. Harrias talk 13:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, it wasn't a response to anyone in particular, it was just an observation to one of the usual objections. Bobo. 14:30, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a List of Pakistan Air Force cricket team players or similar. Firstly, this is not a biography but a badly disguised match scorecard. As stated in WP:NSPORT, Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. Trivial database scrape coverage is all this article has and if the cricket sub-SNG conflicts with this guideline, then too bad for the cricket sub-SNG. The 2017 RfC confirmed this. Secondly, the Pakistan Air Force team played only eight matches in its existence, were pretty uncompetitive, and their star players were ex-Test cricketers in their 40s. This suggests that the team had problems getting players together. I think a guideline designed to give a temporary and rebuttable presumption of notability to competitive first-class players is a poor fit when used as a permanent exemption to WP:V and WP:N for fill-ins plucked off the runway. A list of players who turned out for this team is a better way to present all these database entries. Since the team played only a few games there ought to be no issues with length. Reyk YO! 09:21, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet the basic requirements of WP:GNG or WP:SPORTBASIC; it has been shown time and time again that the criteria laid down by WP:NCRIC are overly inclusive and a poor indicator of notability for players who have appeared in very few matches – nothing has changed with the guideline since the RfC linked above, which reinforces that view and makes it clear that arguments based WP:NSPORT guidelines alone should carry little weight at AfD. Per SPORTBASIC, scorecards are nothing more than WP:ROUTINE proof he played; claiming notability requires much more than that. Incidentally, his performance in his one fc match suggests he may have merely been making up the numbers. As the only sources are indiscriminate statistical repositories (Cricinfo, CricketArchive, etc.), this falls well below the threshold required by GNG as there is zero significant coverage. Unfortunately, as a result of the limited sourcing, this is also nothing more than a mirror of those websites converted into a couple of sentences. If there were an appropriate "list of.." article, he would probably belong there. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People keep saying "overly inclusive" without being willing to suggest alternative brightline inclusion criteria. Saying "this is a problem" without being prepared to give a solution to the problem is pointless. If the guideline is "too inclusive", suggest your own and if it's suitable to our aims, we will adopt it. The guidelines have been fine for the last 16 years. It's easy to say "this is a problem", but if people have no idea how to alter the brightline criteria, these comments cannot be acted upon. Not a comment specifically aimed towards you, just in general. As for List of X, there should be one of these for every first-class team anyway. Bobo. 10:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The 2017 RfC, innumerable discussions, and the outcomes of countless AfDs over the past few years prove the cricket guideline is not "just fine", especially in this area (very few domestic matches). wjematherplease leave a message... 10:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't my point. People keep saying "the inclusion criteria are too inclusive" without providing alternative criteria. I still maintain the RfC was a complete mess and nobody has been able to convince me otherwise. Bobo. 10:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Bright line criteria" is a euphemism for "no thoughts allowed". Reyk YO! 10:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC):[reply]
That's precisely the point. If people were willing to follow brightline criteria we wouldn't have to "think" about it, and go through this every two months for the sake of boredom. Bobo. 10:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And if I may quote you directly (and I'm saying this in your defence(!)), why do you consider the article for George Burbury to be, as you said yourself, "gibberish"? This article is absolutely not gibberish and incorporates every necessary piece of knowledge. The fact is that if this, and other, such articles, contained infoboxes, nobody would bat an eyelid. Bobo. 10:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can have "brightline criteria", but only for a presumption (or likelihood) of notability. To actually establish notability where that presumption is questionable, more work is required, which includes thinking and making a judgement (usually starting with substantial coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, for which there is none in this case). And, to be clear, the claim that infoboxes prevent deletion is ludicrous, as well as patently untrue. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then put three quarters of all the articles I've ever created, and most of the articles 02blythed ever created, up for deletion please. Or work on them yourself. Whichever you think is more beneficial to the project. Bobo. 11:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete. I'd be quite happy to merge to the list suggested but don't have time to create the list itself just now.
We simply don't have enough information about the chap to justify a stand alone article and have no real biographical details other than a single name. We know only that he played in a single cricket match - we don't have any club matches etc... to give us a greater chance of showing notability. That match was a first round one in a knock out tournament and marked the only first-class match for a number of players. I have some concerns regarding notability as a result. Put that together with the issues with verifiability and a total failure to get anywhere close to meeting the GNG and I think it is extremely unlikely that we will ever find out anything that would come close to the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That Test player's name sounds oddly familiar. M Imtiaz (talk · contribs) 09:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I admire the person who's going to send all (eight) of the single first-class match players merely of this team to deletion. You ask why there's so many red links? I think you have the answer, my friend. Exclusionism isn't the fault of those who created the project. I would point out that Mohammad Naeem (Pakistan Air Force cricketer) is in exactly the same position as this guy, but because he has an infobox nobody will bother sending him to deletion... If you (I don't mean you specifically, BST) want to help rather than destroy the project I think you have your answer. None of you would bat an eyelid if they had infoboxes. (Check out User:02blythed's contributions to see what I mean). Bobo. 10:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up Bobo192; merger discussion here. Harrias talk 11:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Humpf. Makes you wonder whether I should have said anything.... Well, have fun doing that with every Indian and Pakistani first-class team... Bobo. 11:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:RED, they should probably be unlinked. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what was worrying me. I found an article the other day linked from a list of 1980s Canadian badminton players or something. Chap had died in the 1910s iirc... I wonder if someone could double check and make sure that I haven't missed anyone. I was thinking that a tabular format with a brief career summary might be a better way to go about this list, which will avoid the red link issue. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:REDLINK states: "In general, a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a title that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there is no existing article, or article section, under any name. "
The fact that people are invalidating these redlinks by eventually sending their (eventually) bluelinked articles to deletion is not the fault of those who care for the aims of the project. Bobo. 10:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A table would definitely be better and enabled any useful detail to be presented in an accessible format. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked whether we should do the same - regarding the inclusion of statistics in a first-class team article list - several times and the answer has been an outright "no". Makes you wonder... Bobo. 10:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start - there are different ways to do this, but a prose summary is my preferred route. I won't do any more for a while and see if there's any feedback, but it won't take too long to do them all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As we've seen before in these discussions, whether someone's biographical details are known or not bears no logic upon whether people send the articles to AfD... Once again, it makes you wonder what these people's aims for the project are when they contain all the information you would expect of an article...I maintain that any other information in the article is mere excessive bumf. Bobo. 11:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty much exactly what I had in mind, although probably include dob/dod where known; don't see any need/value in including an excessive amount of statistical detail/analysis. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:08, 3 August 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ziauddin_(cricketer)&oldid=971783832"