Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan Akram


 * 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 no consensus to delete, after much-extended time for discussion. Improvements suggested by DevaCat1 are certainly now free to be implemented. BD2412 T 06:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Adnan Akram

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in coverage, fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  13:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no reliable sources and notable achievements fails GNG and NCRICKET. Setreis (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC) — Confirmed and blocked sockpuppet account. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:28, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * He does pass NCRICKET in its current state having played 9 FC and 2 LA games. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 13:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete 9 FC and 2 LA matches, however I'm only really finding match reports from his club cricket. Most of his cricket was for a uni side so I doubt there will be any real coverage anywhere else. No redirect either as he played for 3 different sides. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As set out in my comments below, there is quite a bit of coverage in Wisden specific of him; in 2004-06, Wisden had coverage of all of the FC matches played by Cambs UCCE. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Per my comment, coverage of the match is not coverage of the individual. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep 11 matches (9 FC/2 LA), with 2 centuries in first-class cricket. Meets WP:CRIN and there's probably a mention in Wisden of his centuries in 2004 and 2005 (plus a 98 in 2003). StickyWicket (talk) 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be notable: scored a first-class hundred which was reported in The Times on 14th May 2004 https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/akram-century-has-middlesex-floundering-wxsbwk3d5g5 Piecesofuk (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The Times appears to be good, but I'm not seeing any additional coverage in my BEFORE search. Another good article would get this into week keep territory for me. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Strong keep He has a lot of references in the various match and seasonal reports in Wisden- on a quick check at least p. 851 (2004), p. 853 (2004), p. 908 (2005), p. 920 (2006), all of which are more significant than scorecard coverage. His twin brother played in the same Cambridge UCCE team as him, which bizarrely is also not referenced in the article (Arfan was also pretty successful with both bat and ball). I'm not going to amend the article now, as there's too much risk it will be deleted and the work will be wasted, but if the AfD is withdrawn I'll expand to something more meaningful than the pretty minimal article that's there right now. DevaCat1 (talk) 00:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are his entries in Wisden substantial enough to contribute to SIGCOV? Being more significant than a database entry doesn't make a source automatically qualify for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, in my view they are. I would also work in the Times article referenced above by Piecesofuk, but it's paywalled; the lead para is all about him, though. I would have thought a combination of coverage in Wisden across three different almanacks and The Times, along with a range of more statistical type coverage would be sufficient to pass GNG, even if nothing more is found in offline sources. DevaCat1 (talk) 15:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The Times article provides no significant coverage; it is routine match coverage, merely stating he scored a maiden hundred and mentioning his twin. Given the expanded content, it is clear that the Wisden coverage is also little more than routine match coverage. In other words, there is no significant coverage of him; only a couple of trivial snippets of information among run-of-the-mill sports reporting. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * As usual, you and I disagree. Wisden coverage is highly significant, and many regular first-class professionals get barely two or three mentions a season, as I've found when researching other articles about players with international appearances in their domestic matches. I don't even understand the point of you replying to me, as you never seek consensus, merely to attempt to bully me off the site with specious and aggressive arguments. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is kind of an aside to the discussion, but the claim that regular first-class professionals only get a couple mentions a season is consistent with my "short tail" argument about why so many cricketers are currently at AfD - the most famous cricketers get heaps of coverage, but significant coverage of other players, even good players, drops off rather quickly and can be difficult to find. I've even found local cricketers may actually receive more coverage than some professionals since their local newspaper will write about their local amateur team! Relevant to the discussion, online Wisden biography has no text, so I'm assuming you're claiming there's significant coverage of him in the print edition? SportingFlyer  T · C  17:27, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I don't even look at online sources most of the time; I have a significant cricket reference library and use that. Online sources are dire for cricket. There is Cricinfo and, erm, nothing else; and even Cricinfo only has meaningful coverage since c. 2005. This means that the WP:BEFORE process is an abject failure, as there is continual searching for stuff that doesn't exist online, even when there is piles of stuff offline. A solid county pro (say, 45 wickets and 300 runs in FC cricket per season) will barely merit a mention in Wisden beyond scorecard entries- it's basically 50s, 4fers or better to even get a quick note in the match report. There is also a significant geographic bias- if you are the 30th best first-class cricketer in Pakistan or Sri Lanka, but don't play internationally, you will barely get a mention even in scorecards in hardcopy sources in English. This is a stark contrast with (say) the NFL, where the college setup and draft process means blanket coverage for the 1000th best player in the US at any one time. There are lots of genuinely trivial cricketers on wikipedia, partly because of the inclusion of List A cricket as a qualifying threshold, which brings up piles of players who play one match for Dorset. But we're dealing here with a player with two first-class centuries, and having coverage in The Times dismissed as trivial. DevaCat1 (talk) 17:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What do the Wisden sources say, specifically? He doesn't come up in a book search. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:35, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Unless the rest of The Times coverage beyond the first paragraph goes on to detail his performance in other matches and gives strong biographical info, it's definitely not looking like SIGCOV. Seems pretty routine from the snippet I can view. JoelleJay (talk) 04:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, per my and others' arguments above. JoelleJay (talk) 01:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, jp×g 03:13, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Turns out I have access to The Times. Here is the entirety of the article, which is almost exclusively a match report failing SIGCOV:
 * JoelleJay (talk) 22:52, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep per the comments made by AssociateAffiliate, with 11 matches played, etc.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:37, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kichu🐘 Need any help? 08:37, 30 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Another comment. Since the article in The Times is clearly routine match coverage, we'll need to find two actual SIGCOV sources for this BLP. Can someone (DevaCat1? Wjemather?) provide the extent of his coverage in Wisden? JoelleJay (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Wisden contains a summary report of the university season, and I suspect the sum total of his coverage will be passing mentions in those. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (or redirect to an appropriate list article if it exists) due to lacking SIGCOV (per the extensive search provided above) and failing GNG - passing a (relatively weak) SNG is not sufficient, as WP:NSPORTS says: "conversely, meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept."... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Run-of-the-mill domestic cricket player, apparently that is enough to meet WP:NCRICKET. MrsSnoozyTurtle (talk) 05:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)


 * 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.