Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Akram (blind 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 keep. Merging can be discussed at the talk page and does not have to be at AFD -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 04:51, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Muhammad Akram (blind cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

He has to pass WP:GNG in order to be notable which he fails so it looks a delete.  Greenbörg  (talk)  17:24, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Some better searches: . 86.17.222.157 (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 18:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 18:36, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:13, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes it is my mistake and I accept the deletion nomination of the biography about a blind cricketer which is quite doubtful for many people. As the author of the article I just created the article as he holds the world record for the highest individual score by any batsman in a 40 Overs Blind cricket match. I too propose it for a deletion. Abishe (talk) 07:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Comment and, what about redirect to Pakistan national blind cricket team as an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep the nominator is mistaken in claiming that the subject must pass GNG to be kept. Per WP:NCRIC criterion 1 the subject has "appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level". In Blind Cricket the World Cup is the highest international level. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But that is different from this type of cricket. WP:CRIN doesn't cover Blind cricketers.  Greenbörg  (talk)  10:00, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's the only guide for cricket, thus it applies to all forms/variants of cricket unless it explicitly excludes them. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:15, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Roger (Dodger67) As per this community discussion subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to.NSPORTS does not supersede GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:34, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no situation where GNG does not apply, so that statement makes no sense at all. An SNG cannot be used to exclude/delete an article when the subject passes GNG, but the reverse is patently absurd because that would negate the entire reason for the existence of SNGs. SNGs exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG. An SNG provides for a presumption of notability, not a presumption of non-notability. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The Closing statement states  There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline As per the community discussion linked above. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:36, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that SNG provides for a presumption of notability and not non notability particularly to SNGs exist to provide for the inclusion of certain defined subjects that cannot immediately be shown to pass GNG that those playing actively .The statement is a general one about the RFC.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The closure of that discussion was much more nuanced than your claim here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep world record score for a blind cricketer, covered in cricket sources such as Cricket World and almost certainly in reliable magazines such as Wisden Cricket Monthly and The Cricketer Atlantic306 (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above world record score for a blind cricketer and subject has been mentioned in Wisden Cricket Monthly and Cricketer.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per the comments above.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 03:38, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Blind cricket, with maybe a mention in Pakistan national blind cricket team per WP:BIO1E. He is currently the world record holder, but one day he won't be. And to pre-empt the NOTTEMP comments, if it is such a permanent noteworthy thing, who was the previous holder? And the one before that? WP:NCRIC talks about the highest level for cricket. This is not the highest level for cricket, otherwise we'd be meeting notability criteria for every player at that tournament. If you want to argue that blind cricket is different, get consensus at WP:NBLINDCRIC Club Oranje T 11:46, 9 October 2017 (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.