Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Gulfraz


 * 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. Tone 06:56, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Mohammad Gulfraz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:06, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep has played in multiple first class games so not a marginal case.CreativeNorth (talk) 18:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria – as such, arguments based on this criteria should be disregarded. Only three FC matches played over a period of one month with three unremarkable performances, so unlikely to have generated coverage. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:32, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep played in multiple matches.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep has played in numerous notable matches. StickyWicket (talk) 11:25, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment "played in matches" only proves existence, not notability. Also, the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:58, 13 September 2020 (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.