Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wasim Zahoor

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) 15:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wasim Zahoor

[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) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:08, 9 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. One solitary match played, in which he contributed very little. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:14, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It's difficult to presume notability; meets NCRIC nonetheless. 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 ☎️ 10:21, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UTBC. The individual meets the notability requirements. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of Lahore Lions cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 11:41, 13 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.