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. As pointed out by a number of editors, passing an SNG is irrelevant if an article doesn't pass GNG. Black Kite (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Obaidullah Sarwar[edit]

Obaidullah Sarwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in Urdu/English newspapers. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask which newspapers you checked for this routine check? You've had a number in the past which have been significant fails, where I've been able to

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was a good example of what can happen when articles get written exclusively from scorecard data, and WP:WHYN. I have rewritten the article and removed the invented narrative. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:45, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Has played 5 FC games passing him for WP:NCRIC, but no coverage. Sources may exist offline and in Pakistani sources but I couldn't find any in a search. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but limited coverage, is redirected/deleted. As he has played for two different sides, there isn't a suitable WP:ATD here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:56, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with five first class matches he passes WP:NCRIC. No information is provided by the nominator as to why he would not be able to pass WP:GNG eventually, in line with the criteria for WP:ATHLETE, as set out in the FAQ at the top of that guideline: The sports-specific notability guidelines are not intended to set a higher bar for inclusion in Wikipedia: they are meant to provide some buffer time to locate appropriate reliable sources when, based on rules of thumb, it is highly likely that these sources exist... Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. The nominator should provide detailed evidence of which precise sources he has checked, rather than just stating "nothing in Urdu/ English newspapers"- which newspapers, from which dates? User:Störm has been consistently failing to provide evidence of sufficient checking of sources; indeed, given the number of AfD nominations made by this user, it is in my view impossible- even if he spent 168 hours per week on it- to have done sufficient checks, including those of hardcopy content. On several articles he has nominated, I have done my own subsequent checks, and there is additional coverage which has neither been included in the article, nor referenced by the editor in question. This type of handwaving at checks, which is designed to provide a rationale for deletion where none exists, just isn't acceptable from any editor. DevaCat1 (talk) 11:40, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Such demands far exceed WP:BEFORE and are unreasonable; if you have issues with the conduct of the nominator, take it to WP:ANI. Please clarify that these sources you have found are not simply more databases, scorecards and passing mentions. If they do constitute significant coverage, then please add them (and the additional content they provide) to the article(s) so everyone is able to evaluate them. Thanks. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) DevaCat1, please search and prove me wrong. I found this in my before which I don't think proves his notability. Störm (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a total and complete failure of GNG. Articles like this prove that we need to scrap the cricket guidelines, as has been said over and over. Wikipedia is not cricketpedia, and biographical articles need to have substances which these lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage, only wide ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps the trivial pass of WP:NCRIC, which has proven to be a very poor guide to the existence of coverage in cases such as this, where there are few known matches and no performances of note. No suitable redirect target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:16, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fails WP:NCRICKET and WP:GNG. Sliekid (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:GNG, the only source fails WP:SPORTCRIT, I can find no other available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 12:45, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note redirecting to List of Water and Power Development Authority cricketers could be a valid option per established precedent. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:22, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Has played more matches for Sialkot (3 to 2), while I feel a redirect would be confusing here because of this List of Sialkot cricketers also exists. Personally I wouldn't redirect because of this. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NCRIC. Riteboke (talk) 07:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:GNG. Obviously failing GNG should be enough for deletion even if it marginally passes WP:NCRICJackattack1597 (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- fails GNG. This is another in the seemingly endless parade of match scorecards inflated into faux-biographies. Reyk _YO! 10:58, 15 April 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.