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. Consideration of this discussion was almost perfectly balanced in terms of numerical consideration. Moving to consideration of policy, two major disputes occur: the traditional NSPORTS/NCRIC vs GNG one, and the belief that there must be sources in other languages and it should be kept on those grounds.

Meeting an NSPORTS criterion does not remove the need to pass GNG when challenged, as multiple editors pointed out. Those arguing that NCRIC was met did not generally also argue that GNG was met.

Beyond that, at least 2 Keep !voters felt that it should be kept as there were likely (or almost certainly) were sources in other languages. However, this was not made with firm evidence, such as giving a source we just don't have access to check. An article could not indefinitely be kept on these grounds - though if you gain access please get in touch with me.

Factoring these in, the policy-backed consensus reaches the level of delete, rather than no-consensus. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Qaiser Iqbal[edit]

[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)

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:19, 2 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Keep played in 8 FC, 3 LA and 3 T20 matches (WP:NCRIC) in a career spanning nine years (2002/03 to 2011) for at least three different teams. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:40, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Weak keep Has played 8 FC, 3 List-A and 3 T20 matches, well over the 10 needed as a potential for change to the SNG. Coverage in searches seems limited, but sources may well exist offline or in Pakistani sources due to the number of games played. There is no potential redirect per WP:XY due to number of teams played for. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This bio is not pre-internet era, tried search in DAWN, in The Express Tribune, and The News International (three high-quality English newspapers and they usually cover everything, if nothing significant in them then, in my opinion, we can't assume). Störm (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. Shouldn't AfD be where you have to actually show GNG exists, not just continue to presume based on SNG? If there's no coverage anyone can find now, when the subject has increased visibility as an AfD nom, who is to say anything more will be added in the future if kept? Which Pakistani sources would we even expect to contain SIGCOV? Perhaps the Cricket project could maintain a list of these SNG-meeting, GNG-possibly-existing players with relevant pointers for where such information might be found, rather than keeping a stub around indefinitely. JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep He has played in 14 qualifying matches, well over the 1 match threshold for WP:NCRIC, including scoring three first-class half centuries, which are exactly what is likely to lead to meaningful coverage for WP:GNG. Although I'm grateful for User:Störm setting out which sources he has checked- which I think would be a good approach in all AfD discussions- I'm uncomfortable with all of those searches being in English, rather than in Urdu, which is likely to have the most comprehensive coverage of Pakistani cricket. DevaCat1 (talk) 11:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So at what point in the future would a deletion be supported? When someone who speaks Urdu, can evaluate RS quality, and is familiar with NSPORT criteria comes along and agrees that no SIGCOV exists? If this article edited by 5 people in 5 years, which has received only 26 views in the last 30 days with an active deletion discussion ongoing, closes as keep, realistically when will this happen? The next time it's nominated at AfD? What if no one speaking Urdu is found then? Do we just continue indefinitely with these saltatory discussions? This seems like a backwards approach to maintaining a BLP (which has strict sourcing requirements) and is completely at odds with how notability is assessed for non-sports biography subjects. Why is a contemporary cricketer accorded more leeway from WP:BIAS than anyone in any other discipline? JoelleJay (talk) 18:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete a very clear failure of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete A weaker delete than usual, since I found the following, which is a lot more than I normally find for these AfD articles, BUT none of it is significant coverage, all match reports or directory listings: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. A redirect would be good until enough coverage is found to create a good article. SportingFlyer T·C 23:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Delete or Redirect, per my above comments and others'. JoelleJay (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Keep. Undoubtedly coverage will exist in native language sources for this guy. He has played enough matches and made enough contributions for that to very likely be the case. StickyWicket (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2021 (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.