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. Whether or not the subject passes NCRIC becomes moot when notability is challenged. SNGs serve as shortcuts to determine which subjects are likely to pass GNG, but once challenged, sources have to show that GNG actually is met. Randykitty (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Salman Saeed[edit]

Salman Saeed (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 significant in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Has played 5 FC matches, 1 List-A match and 5 T20 matches, so more than the 10 recently suggested in recent talks on WP:Cricket. This seems to suggest he's still playing cricket at some level also and there seems to be some other coverage of his wedding if it's the same person. Played for multiple teams notably so there's no suitable WP:ATD really. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Rugbyfan22 Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the key to notability is reliable sources not matches and those are lacking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. not enough coverage to pass general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with 5 first-class matches and 5 top-class T20s, it is highly likely that there is coverage somewhere; this is exactly the type of case that WP:NCRIC is designed to pick up. With another four AfDs from the same nominator on the day of this nomination, I'm sceptical that the nominator has done sufficient searches, including across a range of non-English sources, to ascertain that there is no coverage. The nomination lacks any meaningful level of detail; there is no evidence of which sources User:Störm has checked, nor in which languages. This is a classic example of a kneejerk AfD via a handwave. AfDs with this lack of evidence of non-notability, when a notability guideline is passed, should simply be rejected en bloc as inappropriate. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is the second time that this article has been recommended for deletion, having previously failed with a unanimous rejection at AfD. There is no explanation of what has changed since that decision was made- has he become less notable? Has there been a substantive change in notability guidelines? I would expect these questions to be pretty central to the consideration of the AfD. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The argument put forward for deletion then was that the article should be about someone else; which is neither a valid reason for deletion (as noted in the speedy close) nor relevant here. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:10, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a reasonable explanation. But I think that it should have been in the AfD, explaining in detail why there was an AfD being presented and providing evidence of which searches had been done. The more detail that is in the AfD, the better quality debate can be had. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• As has been explained previously, there are no such requirements. No-one is badgering you to provide evidence of the existence of sources that you are speculating about. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:12, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Very weak keep. Not finding any significant coverage, only the usual wide-ranging databases and passing mentions in match reports. However, some of his performances, including being the highest wicket taker in the Ramadan T20 Cup, suggests that some likely exists, although that confidence is diminished by him being commonly described as "medium pace" (rather than fast-medium) and not having appeared in any T20s since then. Also only played the odd FC match for three different teams, so clearly going to struggle to reappear at the highest level in the new structure (6 FC teams, reduced from 16). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:09, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. 11 matches at the highest domestic level in Pakistan. I suggested 10 become the benchmark for passing cricketer notability, which seemed to be agreed by some as a sensible idea. However, players beyond 10 appearances are still being targeted for nomination. Slightly confused to be honest. StickyWicket (talk) 23:54, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep played multiple matches at top level, and was highest wicket taker in the Ramadan T20 Cup. Therefore, there are likely sources on him offline and/or not in English. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. These cricket player articles without references are getting ridiculous. WikiPedia is an encyclopedia not a website for sports fancruft.4meter4 (talk) 03:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks significant coverage. Fails WP:SPORTCRIT, which says sports database entries are not satisfactory to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 05:18, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• extremely week keep in lowercase letters per number of matches. Noah ^💬 18:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete he appears to share a name with an actor who also likes playing cricket but was born a decade before - it appears the actor was on a celebrity team which opened up the Gwadar Cricket Stadium. I can't find any coverage of the non-actor except for a single blurb about the U-19 team, though youth internationals are generally discouted by WP:YOUNGATH (at least in other sports.) All of the sources in the article fail WP:SPORTCRIT - even the Pakistani Cricket Site, which would probably be PRIMARY even if it were SIGCOV, are statistical entries. SportingFlyer T·C 12:50, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He has played 5 LA, 1 FA and 5 T20. absolutely notable cricketer. — Masum Ibn Musa  ^Conversation 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment@Randykitty: the sources are absolutely reliable and they show clearly that the article meets notability criteria. The official website of PCB, Cricbuzz, CricketArchive and ESPN Cricinfo are used in this article and all these websites are reliable sources. And these sources show that the player played more than 10 domestic matches. The notability criteria for cricketers are the easiest and simplest among all other subjects. Any player playing any domestic match at highest level are considered notable. So, its tough for me to understand why this discussion is being prolonged, for about a month. A.A Prinon (talk) 14:03, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines. Rondolinda (talk) 22:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep According to WP:NCRICKET, any cricketer playing any International, FC, LA or T20 matches are considered notable. The cricketer played 5 FC matches, 1 LA match and 5 T20 matches. So, as he played domestic cricket at highest standard, he can be considered notable. A.A Prinon (talk) 12:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A.A Prinon, NCRIC provides a weak, rebuttable presumption of meeting GNG, but when challenged GNG must be demonstrated. No sports-specific guidelines provide an avenue to notability outside of GNG. Per NSPORT:

  Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met?
  A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.

  JoelleJay (talk) 16:42, 18 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.