Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mohsin Sayyed


 * 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) Spirit of Eagle (talk) 03:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Mohsin Sayyed

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Has played 7 first-class matches, but there is nothing significant in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  19:13, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:33, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Played in 12 matches (7 F/C, 5 LA), meets WP:NRIC. Found a bit praising his brief F/C stint, along with a couple of indepth articles about him missing out at playing at the U19 World Cup, and expanded the article with them.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep A reasonable, if short, career (7 FC, 5 List-A matches and 7 U19 matches for India), but more importantly there does seem to be just enough coverage for him to pass GNG. There seems to be more than just match reports here. List of Maharashtra cricketers a suitable WP:ATD if it's deemed not enough to pass.
 * Keep 7 first class matches and 5 List A is a reasonable number; at age 25 it's unclear his career his over. Therefore a clear and obvious pass of WP:NCRIC. Also has coverage from several sources in the article; therefore would pass WP:GNG without anything further needing to be found, including potential non-English sources. As with so many other cricket articles, the AfD nomination does not appear to have a clear factual basis, and it seems WP:BEFORE was not adequately conducted. DevaCat1 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. Addition of sources satisfies GNG IMO. StickyWicket (talk) 22:21, 11 April 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.