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. ✗plicit 12:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shabana Kausar[edit]

Shabana Kausar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Subject fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. Although the previous AfD was recent, the article should be reevaluated because it quite clearly fails WP:NSPORT which requires a minimum of one SIGCOV source to be provided. –dlthewave ☎ 04:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Pakistan. –dlthewave ☎ 04:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep: passes WP:NCRIC. Why have these guidelines if we're not going to follow them? StAnselm (talk) 04:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

But NCRIC doesn't presume notability. Significant coverage must be shown to exist. –dlthewave ☎ 04:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@StAnselm: NCRIC isn't the guideline; NSPORT is. Further, as dlthewave points out, it only suggests that significant coverage is likely to exist, and doesn't presume notability - that coverage has to be identified to show notability. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, WP:NCRIC is the guideline. You might be getting it mixed up with WP:CRIN. StAnselm (talk) 05:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NCRIC is part of WP:NSPORT; it is part of a guideline, but isn't a guideline by itself. That means that even if NCRIC did presume notability, for the presumption to be granted the topic would need to meet the broader requirements of NSPORT, which include WP:SPORTCRIT #5. BilledMammal (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete. NSPORT is the guideline, not NCRIC, and an athlete cannot pass NSPORT without at least one SIGCOV being provided. Further, NSPORT doesn't presume notability, it just suggests that coverage is likely to exist, and in this case as with the other four articles previously kept on the grounds of NCRIC it appears that no coverage exists. BilledMammal (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• At the previous AfD for this person which was closed on 1 June as no consensus I wrote:

• Probably keep - the arguments that have been made about a reasonable assumption that sources might exist is a fair one here I think - one appearance in a very minor match and I might suggest otherwise, but three matches against NZ and Australia means I tend to think it's reasonable, even if the team she played in was incredibly weak in comparison. Online sources will be problematic, and the gender bias in cricket sources of any kind at the time she played, especially those from south Asia, means that I have some doubts about proper in depth coverage - there have been cases in the past where we've struggled to find anything at all. In that case we would obviously, and I do mean really obviously, be looking at a redirect to an article such as List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers, if necessary, really, really obviously again, via a dab page if absolutely required - or whenever it's required. There are so many arguments in favour of this approach as opposed to deletion and I do, I'm afraid, struggle to understand the delete votes here.

My view has not changed significantly, although I should add that this is under WP:ATD and that we should probably merge a short note to the redirected page if that option is chosen. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The issue with the arguments that there is a reasonable assumption that sources might exist is that it has been rejected by broader consensus, which says that sports biographies must have at least one source containing WP:SIGCOV to be kept, and thus per WP:CONLEVEL the argument that there must be sources is not appropriate unless you can find at least that one source. A redirect is not appropriate per WP:R#DELETE #1 as there are other Shabana Kausar's mentioned, and a dab page is not appropriate per WP:NOTDIRECTORY, which states Disambiguation pages (such as John Smith) are not intended to be complete listings of every person named John Smith—just the notable ones. BilledMammal (talk) 12:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep per the opening paragraph of WP:NSPORT - "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or (my emp.) the sport specific criteria set forth below", and therefore meets WP:NCRIC. As BST has mentioned, above, sources are likely to exist, albeit hard to find. At worst, a simple redirect to the List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers page. I don't really understand the desire to force a deletion over a redirect either. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep Per my comments in the previous AfD. At worst should be redirected to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers as a suitable WP:ATD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per previous AFD, repeatedly relisting until it gets deleted is inappropriate. Stifle (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep meets WP:GNG as international cricketers almost always meet WP:GNG. The fact that she has been described as "young medium pacer Shabana Kausar looking a bowler of some promise" by a New Zealand newspaper, The Timaru Herald (Sth Canty XI outshine Pakistan) and that she was part of the inaugral ODI team (tough to be a woman cricketer and as a woman myself I know that). If foreign newspaper is writing about her then surely there would be some articles about her in local language, but (shame) that they haven't been digitalized yet. 2407:7000:9D08:BE00:3590:5467:F7A1:95AE (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.