Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Zahid (Faisalabad 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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Zahid (Faisalabad cricketer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Did a search but found nothing about him. He clearly fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 22:11, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:24, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep passes WP:NCRIC. Played in TEN first-class matches, along with 3 LA and a T20 match. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has played 10 FC matches, 3 List-A matches and 1 T20 match so comfortably passes WP:NCRIC. Article needs expanding and not deleting. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:36, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails WP:GNG. All I can find are database directory entries and a very short match report, and GNG supersedes any sports SNG. SportingFlyer T·C 13:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should say that the updated notability guidelines don't say that GNG supersedes any sports SNG or any SNG for that matter. They currently state "topics which pass an SNG are presumed to merit an article, though articles which pass an SNG or the GNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if adequate sourcing or significant coverage cannot be found, or if the topic is not suitable for an encyclopedia." While your view that the article doesn't have enough coverage to pass GNG is a fair one, the latter point on GNG superseding SNGs is an incorrect one. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It actually appears as if I wrote the text you're citing (2 December). The text is written very specifically because some SNGs do override GNG, mostly WP:NPROF. That's not the case for sports. This RfC clearly shows that a sports SNG does not matter when GNG is so clearly unsatisfied There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Basically, we can presume that Zahid qualifies for an article, but the purpose of an AfD for a sports biography is to check to make sure the article really satisfies WP:GNG, which this either does not, or sources haven't been found. Further exacerbating the issue is that unlike other sports, WP:NCRIC does not accurately predict when a player will pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:03, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for linking this SportingFlyer, I was reading from WP:SNG which may have well been from the discussion you've cited. If this is the case then can sports and athletes be removed from the subject-specific guidelines box at the top of the WP:N page as this has clearly confused me. As WP:SNG is saying one thing, yet the RfC has completely changed what actually appears to be true. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think they're incongruent: this player passes a SNG, he's presumed to meet a notability guideline, but he falls under a notability guideline that requires GNG to be met. SNGs are far too broad to have WP:SNG be this specific for sports - that was one of the challenges of drafting that text. SportingFlyer T·C 17:13, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate this discussion is probably for elsewhere and for other discussions past and present and so can be rhetorical. But if the case is has to pass GNG now, why do SNGs still exist apart from WP:PROF which seems to be the only one that supersedes GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ease. We try to tailor SNGs to meet GNG, because while it's not difficult, the GNG isn't the simplest thing in the world to understand. It also helps greatly with providing a barometer when sources will exist for historical topics or non-English-language topics that may be harder to research: for instance, stubs of historical politicians from non-English speaking countries are routinely kept when they pass WP:V, since it's clear they'll have received historical coverage. Cricket's a bit difficult because the SNG has been around awhile and has not been tailored to the GNG, so we can't assume there's coverage when none has been demonstrated, and attempts to remedy this have been resisted. SportingFlyer T·C 17:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus on SNGs and GNG you refer to in that RFC is "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline" - Wikipedia talk:Notability#Request for Comment on the Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) shows that consensus has changed since then. Peter James (talk) 09:54, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I, at least in part, wrote the text at that RfC. Nothing about that discussion deprecates what was said before - it was just to provide a description for how SNGs work currently, not to create any new policy. A small subset of SNGs does not supplant GNG. Sports is not one of those. SportingFlyer T·C 16:24, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As was made abundantly clear in the discussions that culminated in the RfC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per Lugnuts, he played in first class matches which passes WP:NCRIC criteria. Pilean (talk) 16:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There is simply no way this discussion would be held if there was an Australian or English player who had played 10 first class matches, including scoring a half century. It's an easy pass of WP:NCRIC, and reflects the lack of good access to sources in Pakistan for most editors on an English language site, which would have the potential to provide a GNG pass anyway. DevaCat1 (talk) 22:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Again, the fact there's a technical WP:NCRIC pass doesn't matter, considering not a single keep !voter has pointed to an actual source which qualifies for GNG. The Cricinfo site is just a list of statistics, which doesn't count towards SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 15:55, 19 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. Per Lugnuts. StickyWicket (talk) 19:04, 30 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.