Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Usman Zeb

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 keep. Tone 06:55, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usman Zeb

[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) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played in six first-class and three List A matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Lugnuts from what I understand, this doesn't establish notability. Only sources which talk about the person in detail and are inpendant of him count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor (talk • contribs) 07:17, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are correct. The presumption of notability offered by WP:NCRIC on the basis of appearances has proven very unreliable where few matches have been played (hence progress at WT:NSPORT on removing it), so must be disregarded. Sources must be found that offer substantial coverage of the individual beyond routine & indiscriminate statistical databases in order to satisfy the requirements of WP:GNG, WP:BIO, WP:SPORTBASIC, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are incorrect. The notability has been meet by playing in those matches. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, only the requirements for a presumption of notability offered by WP:NCRIC has been met (which is unreliable at best). More is required to confirm notability, i.e. substantial coverage in reliable source independent of the subject (indiscriminate cricket databases such as cricinfo/cricketarchive do not count). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:54, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes, they meet the notabilty. They are not indiscriminate cricket databases, infact, they are quite the opposite, as any per any dictionary will tell you. THe bigger concern is about this "new" user, which has been flagged by other editors, myself included. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Lugnuts. Passes WP:CRIN — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeNorth (talk • contribs) 16:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:CRIN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The consensus from this RFC is that no subject specific guideline supercedes GNG, specifically sport (including NCRIC), and arguments must go further than bare "meets SNG" assertions. Ideally, articles such as these would simply be merged into lists, but those lists do not exist in many cases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:44, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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 ☎️ 09:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per previous editors, passes WP:CRIN. Deathlibrarian (talk) 05:51, 12 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.