Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saeed Moutabar

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 , defaulting to "keep". The outcome of this discussion hinges on the weight given to WP:NCRIC. There has been enough doubt cast on its utility that I am not comfortable unilaterally declaring it sufficient to overrule the concerns of those !voting "delete"; however, it is still a guideline, as things stand. A community-wide discussion about this SNG, and any others frequently seen to be too low a bar, would seem to be necessary. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saeed Moutabar

[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)

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A non notable Pakistani Cricketer.Priyanjali singh (talk) 11:05, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you need to mention him being Pakistani? Does the fact that he is Pakistani make him non notable CreativeNorth (talk) 16:09, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CreativeNorth, I wouldn't take offense to it. Likely the mention that he's Pakistani is just descriptional filler. I'll do that to since it's hard to write a good detailed nomination rational sometimes. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:12, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played five domestic games, it is not a marginal case it easily satisfies WP:CRIN and here's your non directory/stats listing to satisfy WP:GNG CreativeNorth (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG requires "significant coverage" – match reports with passing mentions do not meet that criteria. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:20, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Only two FC and 3 LA matches played during one season, contributing very little in any of them. No substantial sources available beyond routine match reports and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...}
Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:34, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played in five matches in Pakistan. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "played matches" only proves existence, not notability; and this recent AfD confirms that even 15 matches is not enough for a reliable presumption of notability. Also, the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:54, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played in five FC/ListA matches. Johnlp (talk) 19:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems like the notability standards for athletes like this one are changing and for good reason IMO. Since Wikipedia isn't a directory. Which is all this article is. He clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines though and I think they are the important thing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Played five FC/LA matches, meets notability in that respect. StickyWicket (talk) 08:59, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another WP:ATA. Please elaborate and provide proof of notability, i.e. reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite passing NCRIC there's no indication of notability. Nigej (talk) 10:35, 22 September 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.