Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohammad Zubair (cricketer, born 1987)


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Mohammad Zubair (cricketer, born 1987)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:GNG, nothing in coverage found. Störm  (talk)  17:43, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep has played in multiple matches across all three formats, so passes WP:NCRIC. So much for your own comment at ANI of "I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD".  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:26, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * That comment was clearly a knee-jerk reaction. No sanctions were imposed at ANI, and Störm is free to participate as they wish. They were also reassured by many participants at ANI that they were generally doing a good job in identifying articles to be listed at AFD. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:12, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There was support to limiting to one AfD again, and while no sanction was placed (mainly because Storm announced he wasn't going to AfD/would limit the number of AfDs) here we have 4 AfDs in a matter of minutes. While it doesn't seem like many at the moment, if there's another 4 this evening, another 4 tomorrow afternoon then another 4 tomorrow evening, then it starts becoming a burden on those at WP:CRICKET. I though have no objections to these articles going through AfD and believe that they're only at AfD following a discussion over naming conventions on the project. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:45, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree that was a knee-jerk reaction; I see it more likely a commitment from someone who has been caught acting inappropriately. I'd be very supportive of the one per day restriction previously proposed at ANI to stop this type of behaviour. In my view the ANI should clearly be reopenedDevaCat1 (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but no such restrictions were imposed and four new nominations (now 14 in total at delsort\cricket) is far from excessive. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:07, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In my last comment at WP:ANI, I said I will try to restrict myself to 5 AfDs which is a reasonable number, and for clarification, I do WP:BEFORE for the bundle at once so don't say that I am not doing before unless you find any coverage. Störm   (talk)  21:31, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * So your comment of "I have decided to leave the WP:CRIC and will never AfD any cricket article in future nor I will participate in their discussion or close any AfD" was an out-right lie to WP:GAME the system. Pretty hard to AGF with you from now on based on that.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:19, 12 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree, but my concern is if 4 becomes 40 like it did last time. Storm has already said he wouldn't do anymore cricket related AfDs and here we are, so there's nothing stopping him piling them on again. Hopefully it's not the case though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:10, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As per my earlier comment, I saw that very much as a kneejerk reaction. So let's AGF and assume Störm understands the issue (the fact there are not 20+ noms certainly indicates that way). In any case, such concerns would be better raised with Störm at their talk page (or elsewhere), not at all four afds. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:27, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There are now 36 open AfDs from User:Störm, well above the 20+ threshold you mention in your comment, which would appear to indicate that he does not understand the issue at all. DevaCat1 (talk) 14:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it was 20+ per day that was the problem. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:32, 11 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep: Has played 1 FC, 2 List-A and 4 T20 matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC. I second Lugnuts' comments on the ANI, especially as there seem to be a number of AFD's here again, which was one of the concerns brought up at the ANI. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:04, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * United Bank Limited cricket team is a suitable WP:ATD if required. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete subject fails GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Fails WP:BIO. No in-depth coverage. There aren't sufficient source to write a biography, nor will there ever be. WP:WHYN explains we require significant coverage"so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page". Pontificalibus 16:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. No significant coverage, only wide-ranging databases built on scorecard data, so fails WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. This trumps the trivial pass of NCRIC (playing for the weakest team in the competition) which by consensus is a very poor indicator of worthiness for a standalone article in cases such as these. Lack of any performances of note suggests no coverage will be found. Redirect would be an accepted ATD, but a suitable target does not exist. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: Coverage and notable reliable sources not found. TheDreamBoat (talk) 13:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * 'Weak keep I thoroughly understand that there is not adequate coverage about the subject. However, as per the guidelines of WP:Cricket, a cricketer who has played in minimum of one match either in List A, T20 or FC definitely passes the guidelines to be notable enough. Abishe (talk) 08:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep As previously discussed, this is an easy pass of WP:NCRIC, having played all three formats at a sufficient level. If some other editors have problems with the cricket notability standard, they would be better placed to open a proper discussion on that (and on the much more permissive WP:NFOOTY) than just submitting bunches of AfDs in breach of the guidelines. As with most of the other cricket AfDs, this needs improving, not deleting. DevaCat1 (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:49, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete: per above, no significant coverage and from what I see, he hasn't done anything for a bit so there's a reasonable doubt that he'll be playing at a high enough level to pass WP:NCRIC. Kline &#124; vroom vroom 23:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete clearly fails WP:GNG, which all sports bios must adhere to per consensus. SportingFlyer  T · C  16:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:06, 27 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.