Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naseer Ahmed (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 delete. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 08:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Naseer Ahmed (cricketer)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No coverage found, fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  07:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:19, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - I'm surprised only this article exists as there are seven Naseer Ahmeds who have played first-class cricket, one of whom has played since this article was set up. As for Islamabad, there exists an article for cricketers for Islamabad United in the PSL, but not Islamabad themselves. Bobo. 08:45, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete as there's no suitable list to redirect to. Trivial pass of NCRIC but failure of GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep for keep's sake. In any case, more should be done to ensure that there are player-by-player lists, particularly by those who insist articles which pass CRIN need to be deleted. Bobo. 10:40, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northern Escapee (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivially passes NCRIC, which only offers a very weak presumption of notability, but ultimately fails GNG and all other guidelines. No substantial sources appear to exist. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:01, 8 February 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.