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. There is by now a relatively broad community consensus that participation in certain sporting events establishes a presumption of notability per the sport-specific notability guidelines, but that this is not enough to establish actual notability if, as here, no sources beyond participation records can be found at AfD. Sandstein 15:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tariq Hafeez[edit]

Tariq Hafeez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Not a notable Person per WP:GNG. Also couldn't find much during WP:BEFORE. Seems like a minor, non-notable person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Iitianeditor (talk • contribs) 19:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As per wiki WP:CRIN he has appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. So he qualifies as per that. Also ESPN cricnfo is a reliable source that sources it. I suggest expanding the page rather than deleting it as domestic cricketers are notable. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:22, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Many discussions, including recently at WT:CRIC#WP:CRIN and WT:NSPORTS#Recent English FC cricketers fail WP:GNG / WP:BIO, plus a 2017 RfC demonstrate a consistent clear consensus that cricket notability guidelines are overly inclusive, so arguments at AfD based solely on those criteria should hold little water. Where are the sources to meet the requirements of WP:BLP/GNG/WP:BIO? Without those sources, this article should be merged/redirected to a List of Bahawalpur cricketers, but such a list does not exist. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:31, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has played in 15 professional cricket matches and thus satisfies WP:CRIN. That's also not to say sources in Urdu or other regional languages don't also exist, we write off these cricketers too quickly simply because they're not covered in English sources. StickyWicket (talk) 12:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we need some substantial sources beyond the directory-like cricket info.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:31, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; per my comment above, there is no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and no list to merge into. The presumption of notability afforded by NCRIC/CRIN is unreliable at best, and discussions are ongoing at WT:NSPORT on how to rewrite them; as such arguments based on them should probably be disregarded at this time. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:16, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. With 15 first-class or List A appearances, this is not a marginal case. Likely to be sources in non-English papers or websites. Shouldn't we be encouraging better coverage of Pakistani cricket? Johnlp (talk) 17:38, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I keep seeing assertions of non-English language sources (in various discussions) but not a single such source has been uncovered for any of these obscure cricketers. As such, we must assume that the assertion that such sources exist is demonstrably false. Yes, we should be encouraging improved coverage, but that should be through better quality articles and creating lists for these players, not endless crappy perma-stubs that say nothing more than "X existed and played a couple of matches for Y cricket team (the standard of which is/was highly questionable)" and are sourced exclusively from (largely indiscriminate) statistical databases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:03, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say the standard of these matches "is/was highly questionable". I don't know how you reckon to know that, but their status is not questionable: they are acknowledged first-class or List A matches as agreed under international cricket definitions. You state that the statistical databases are "largely indiscriminate": this is not true, and both Cricketarchive.com and espncricinfo.com are high-quality comprehensive compilations used and relied upon by cricket historians and writers. You are, I assume, fluent in the many languages of Pakistan and therefore able to "assume that the assertion that such [local language] sources exist is demonstrably false", and moreover to claim that your assumption overrides the presumption of notability for high-level sports performers that WP:NSPORTS confers. You are entitled to a viewpoint, and I think we know what it is; but I do not know what credibility we should ascribe to it. Johnlp (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status does not equate to standard, e.g. we know very well that MCC FC matches are very much lower standard than the County Championship – we do not know the standard of the matches played here (we have no details – no match reports, etc. – although we do know that Pakistan FCC was a bit of a mess at this time), therefore it is clearly questionable. "Comprehensive" = indiscriminate; these websites record everything they can, and absolutely cannot be used to establish notability. When someone is able to provide a non-English source for any of these players, I'll reconsider my viewpoint of such claims – until then, such claims are meaningless. Certain aspects of NSPORTS do not enjoy community consensus – NCRIC is very much one of them, as evidenced by many current, recent and earlier discussions. Ultimately, without any real (rather than postulated) sources that offer substantial coverage of the subject, this fails GNG, SPORTBASIC and NBIO by a wide margin. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:33, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Yet another cricket sub-stub with notability asserted based on the abusurdly low bar of WP:NCRICKET. A listing in an ESPN stats directory does not establish WP:N, no matter what NCRICKET says. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 8 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.