Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Sheraz


 * 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. Consensus here is that this individual does not pass the general notability guideline. ~ mazca  talk 16:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad Sheraz

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG. I found no coverage about him. Störm  (talk)  23:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  23:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment - 80 Lahore City cricketers including some international cricketers with threadbare article content and/or zero references. Bobo. 23:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete not even close to getting notable. We may avoid reaching 1 million biographies of living people this year after all considering how many cricket player articles that do not even remotely come close to meeting the GNG we have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * So this is all about rabid exclusionism after all? That's why this seems so suspicious. This has nothing to do with numbers... this is about having facts, presented in Wikipedia articles. Why are the numbers so important? If people spent as much time working on articles (as I did) as they do about trying to "assess" them for inclusion, we might have a project that wasn't trying to destroy itself... Bobo. 16:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per John Pack Lambert, Kittyclassified (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - Wikipedia is not an exercise in rabid exclusionism. Bobo. 09:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability, but fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases. No suitable list to merge to. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:25, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment If we are to create lists to merge to, we need to distinguish between Lahore and Lahore City. Bobo. 13:15, 12 January 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.