Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Akhlaq Qureshi


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Störm   (talk)  19:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Akhlaq Qureshi

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG. See this RfC regarding SSG. Never scored a century or taken a fifer. CricketArchive and Cricinfo statistical profiles, which can be regarded as trivial coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC, not sufficient to establish notability. Störm  (talk)  19:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Why are we being so inconsistent about these? Are these seriously our new criteria? Scored a century or taken a five-for? Are we just adding them as we come across them, and if so how are we coming across them? At random? How is it taking this long to find these names given that they are all in the same places and we appear to be offended by all of them to the same degree? if we are upset over one cricketer we need to decide which other cricketers we are upset about before adding them at random as we come across them. Perhaps by searching through Category:Italian cricketers or the like. Once again I can't help but feel victimized. Bobo. 19:31, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * , first of all, you did what was best for cricket project and everyone should be thankful to you. You should remain satisfied what you have done. Now, coming towards criteria. For me, rule of thumb is if someone scores a century or takes a fifer or appeared in decent amount of matches then it is possible that he/she would satisfy WP:GNG. Otherwise, no publication will feature or interview a cricketer who appeared in a single domestic cricket match. Actually, it is completely impossible so clearly fails WP:GNG. Coverage in secondary reliable sources is necessary, otherwise, it encourages Kittens. Störm   (talk)  19:42, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Happens I'm not. I'm disgusted and starting to wonder whether there's some kind of vendetta against me. What was the point? Please let me request again - can we decide which cricketers in given categories we find offensive and perhaps bundle-AfD them rather than selecting them at random? Bobo. 19:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:36, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment no evidence of a WP:BEFORE check, the century or fifer criteria stated have never been used as an indicator of notability in the past Spike &#39;em (talk) 20:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Imagine how much our project genuinely would be decimated if these were the defining criteria! ;) Bobo. 20:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have done my part of research for the bio. After the RfC, article has to meet WP:GNG. I just suggested my rule of thumb, and it is not binding. Störm   (talk)  20:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you have brought these suggested rules of thumb to WP:CRIC before randomly deciding to apply them to any cricketer out of the blue? Bobo. 20:46, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It is simple. Every article should pass WP:GNG to be notable. Störm   (talk)  20:51, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * That wasn't my question, nor was it the original point you were making. If you're saying the SNG are insufficient in your personal opinion, could you have suggested your own personally-decided SNG criteria - as you have listed above - and take them to the appropriate place? "Never taken a century or a five-for" is... odd as an SNG. Bobo. 20:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * And to point out for the zillionth time, GNG is of no use when N directly contradicts it. Bobo. 07:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. Has played at the highest domestic cricket in Pakistan, before an ICC Trophy career with Italy - combine the two the subject easily passes. StickyWicket (talk) 16:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - forgive me for making a second comment for the sake of making a suggestion, then I'm done. Störm, if you wish to suggest a change to CRIN inclusion criteria so that a cricketer can only be added to Wikipedia if he has scored a century or taken a five-for, please feel free to do so. You know where and how. Perhaps if you could single-handedly convince us to change the boundaries we've been working at for the last 15 years, then the concept that an individual, as is so often quoted, "barely passes" a guideline(?!) can be implemented. Bobo. 00:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Oh, and for the record, Keep. Has played first-class cricket. Bobo. 00:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Played first-class cricket in Pakistan, and may well also pass WP:GNG for his prominence in Italian cricket. Johnlp (talk) 18:02, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep and close. He has played four matches at top level in Pakistan so he passes the sport-specific criteria. The GNG aspect is debatable but I would nevertheless keep the article because the nomination is flawed by reference to non-existent criteria, as pointed out above by Bobo192. This makes the nomination invalid and I think the case should be closed for that reason. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Le sigh. Let's not even enter the realms of "non-existent criteria". Those who wish to move the goalposts have had enough time and opportunity to do so and keep falling disappointingly short... I know there are Wikipedia articles on non-English Wikipedias of cricketers who meet CRIN who have had their articles deleted from en.wiki (don't ask me which ones, I've lost interest...), I wonder if these Wikipediae have to deal with these "criteria"... Bobo. 11:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per criteria #1 at WP:NCRICKET.Your statement that every article must meet WP:GNG is a complete failure to understand why we have subject specific guidelines in the first place. Here is a relevant Quote: this comment from Dodger67 about subject-specific notability guidelines: An SNG is by definition meant to (temporarily) lower the bar for subjects for which proving GNG compliance is difficult.4meter4 (talk) 19:23, 28 October 2019 (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.