Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adnan Ilyas


 * 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. --Daniel Olsen 05:50, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Adnan Ilyas


Fails WP:BIO utterly. He played for an under-17 team and is now playing for the senior Omani team? Delete, Delete, Delete. Diez2 00:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Being on a national team is normally a sign of notability. Isn't cricket a major sport in Oman, in light of the traditional British influence and the presence of expatriates from countries where cricket is a national sport? --TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 02:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 *  Delete →Keep - As per nom... Spawn Man 02:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed my vote due to below arguements... I actually didn't know that senior league was national... My mistake... Spawn Man 04:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Per WP:BIO: Sportspeople/athletes/competitors who have played in a fully professional league...  I'd say that representing your country in sanctioned international competition qualifies.  Movementarian (Talk) 03:34, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep When in doubt, apply primary notability test: Can we find references to this person in reputable, third party sources. Checking a google search turns up: this site, this site, this site, this site, this site, and this site that turns up specific reviews of his play, and this site that turns up a bio written by an independant cricket press.  There are dozens of more reviews of his play, and much of it is actual articles, not just box scores.  This is a player known to the sports press who receives significant nontrivial coverage, and thus is notable, regardless of his age.  --Jayron 32  03:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. Represents his nation at senior level in one of the major world sports. Oman's cricket team may not be the greatest, and he may not be on course to be a second Don Bradman, but as a representative sportsman he is thoroughly notable.  The fact that his name returns plenty of Google hits doesn't do much harm either.


 * X damr talk 04:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete As per WP:CRIC's "Criteria guideline for article inclusion", any List A cricketer is eligible for an article, but I am going to disagree with it. I am all for having articles about any first class cricketer, but when it comes to List A, we have to take a look at the context. There is no point in having articles about every player from every Associate & Affiliate nation, unless he has done something really significant. Note that Oman is not even an Associate nation but an Affiliate one. The eligibility criteria in WP:CRIC should be revised to make it more rigorous. Tintin (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * reply Regardless of the specifics in the individual notability criteria like WP:CRIC, we should NOT delete any article that we can find substantive information on in reliable sources. Regardless of his level of play, this cricketer shows up in MANY sources with non-trivial coverage. While every List A player from an Affiliate nation may not be notable, this one clearly is. Notability should never be based on a a strictly binary arguement (such as "all articles that meet this one criteria are ALL notable/any that do not are NEVER notable). While such guidelines help point us towards further investigation we should not make such claims when further investigation bears out notability. --Jayron 32 06:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. How is this person special? Prominent? Talk about the team (if anything), not the person. You might as well list a roster of the Oman cricket team. There isn't much information about him anyway. Sr13 07:04, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. He meets the criteria set forth for athletes in WP:BIO.
 * Response. Why is Nate Ilaoa not an article? NCAA football coaches have considered him important and "prominent" in the UH offense. He should be priority when creating UH football related content. Colt Brennan is an article though. Why? He is a "prominent" figure in UH football. Although team prominence is important, player prominence is important as well. Thus my decision. Also, WP:BIO mentions requirement "tests". One refers to the 100 year test- Will the person be remembered 100 years from now? Colt Brennan may. Not so sure about the person; the team possibly. Sr13 07:53, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why is Nate Ilaoa not an article, you ask? The answer appears to be "because nobody has written an article about him". One might suggest that the fact that people care enough about Adnan Ilyas to write an article about him, but don't care enough about Nate Ilaoa to write an article about him, is an adequate indication of relative notability. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 22:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the point here is that these are two entirely separate questions. Whether Adnan Ilyas is deserving of an article should be decided on its own merits (I am not voting, but I will commend the research Jayron did here); if Nate Ilaoa is deserving of an article, start one. If you don't have time to really do it up right, create a stub. But "X doesn't deserve an article because Y doesn't have one" is not the right way to look at it. --DavidConrad 01:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Response. I crossed the unclear section. To clarify, I say insufficient notability. Sr13 02:18, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. He has represented his country at adult international level, ergo he is notable. -- Necrothesp 09:36, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I'm not entirely happy that a player who's appeared at no higher level than the ICC Trophy (which is, after all, very much a second-string international competition) is going to be notable. We wouldn't have a county cricketer who'd only played for a minor county. However, the ICC have deemed the 2005 (and onward) ICC Trophy to be worthy of List A status, and given that fact I think on balance he should stay. Loganberry (Talk) 02:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep international cricketer, notable enough for me. --Canley 10:16, 22 November 2006 (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.