Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoaib Aamer

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 delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shoaib Aamer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Nothing in searches. Non-notable cricketer, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep played multiple F/C and LA matches, so meets WP:NCRIC. As an WP:ATD, redirect to List of Pakistan Automobiles Corporation cricketers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Has played 4 FC matches and 5 List-A matches, so very close to the 10 discussed on WP:Cricket recently. A search brought up no real sources, however sources may well exist offline or in Pakistani sources due to the career he had and the time of his career. He has though played for multiple teams so there is no real suitable WP:ATD per WP:XY. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep significant number of FC and List A games. As usual with User:Störm no details of what searches have been undertaken, whether which online sources or which hardcopy sources. "Non-notable cricketer" is no more than an assertion and reflection of the nominator's bias (whether conscious or unconscious), and isn't grounded in any evidence. No detail of relation of article to WP:NCRIC nor reflection of approach set out in WP:ATHLETE to provide extra latitude for subjects outside the Anglophone sphere where sources are more likely to have been missed. DevaCat1 (talk) 13:37, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've never refuted my rationale. Provide a single good quality source and I will care about your comments. You will comment keep regardless bio passes WP:GNG or not. Störm (talk) 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No significant coverage, only the usual scorecard databases, so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the pass of WP:NCRIC, with no performances of note to suggest coverage exists. No suitable ATD. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:57, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Nothing found in my search, not even single article and as a sources only ESPN scorecard is there so strong reliable sources not found & not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Fails GNG. TheDreamBoat (talk) 05:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPORTCRIT.4meter4 (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Doesn't have enough notability. Gold ★ ⁷⁸⁶ 13:39, 28 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.