Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Afzal (Karachi cricketer)


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:46, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad Afzal (Karachi cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  10:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 10:43, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Has played 1 FC game, but couldn't find any coverage. Sources may exist offline or in Pakistani sources but I couldn't find any, potentially due to his common name. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no coverage, is deleted/redirected. There isn't really a suitable WP:ATD here due to the Karachi teams all being bundled into one article, and no lists existing as of yet. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage found, only the usual wide-ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG. This trumps the very trivial pass of WP:NCRIC, which has proven to be a very poor indicator to the existence of coverage for cricketers such as these. No coverage has ever been uncovered for similar players, and there is no reason to believe any exists here. Redirect would be an accepted ATD, but no suitable target exists. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not even close to enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 22 March 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.