Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Kausar


 * 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 no consensus.

I am extremely conscious of the ongoing debates about guidelines for sportspeople. This debate is one where there is a good-faith disagreement about the interpretation of a guideline. Whilst I am entitled to give lesser weight to contributions that don't have basis in policy, I am not required to write them off entirely. And what we have here is a great many arguments to keep versus a very small, but higher-quality, set of arguments to delete. These in my view net off against one another, and I do not find a consensus to delete.

Anyone who feels merging or redirecting is appropriate is not enjoined from doing so, either by way of WP:BB, or by starting a talk page discussion.

As with all my AFD closures, I have considered this very carefully and will not change my decision based on talk page messages. Anyone wishing to contest the closure may proceed directly to DRV and I waive any and all requirements, expectations, etc. to consult me first. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Shabana Kausar

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence of notability. A search per WP:BEFORE did not turn up any significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Women, Cricket,  and Pakistan. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 11:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * "No evidence of notability" - playing for the national team would suggest otherwise. Ironically, after the almost complete annihilation of WP:NSPORT, she passes WP:NCRIC ("Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation"). However, if sources cannot be found in this instance, then redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers, per WP:ATD, WP:PRESERVE, WP:R and WP:CHEAP. I'll ask the article's other contributor to see if they can find anything more.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 16:26, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Added a couple sources - her CricketArchive profile and an article on the background of the Pakistan tour she was part of. WP:NCRIC really is at the bare minimum at the moment, but as Lugnuts says Shabana Kausar does meet it as an international cricketer. Mpk662 (talk) 17:37, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep An international cricketer, so passes the updated agreed to WP:NCRIC. Sourcing likely exists on all international cricketers. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. We don't delete international cricketers, they have played the game at the highest level. Meets WP:NCRIC and there is probably an abundance of sources in Pakistani print media about this female cricketer. StickyWicket (talk) 09:23, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * We delete any article which doesn't have significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This isn't true, articles can be nominated for deletion, but if there is a likelihood that sourcing may exist (potentially offline in more historic sportsmen and women, or in other languages that can be more difficult to find in a BEFORE search) then articles can be kept. I've seen this in a number of football related articles that have gone through AfD in the past few months. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. That simply isn't the case, international sportspeople who have played at the highest level have presumed coverage. Especially in cricket, where the subject is from a cricket mad country, which will have written coverage. Sadly, Pakistani print media isn't digitalised, but hey... let's create Anglopedia, where only things covered digitally in the Anglosphere count! StickyWicket (talk) 12:37, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:NCRIC says that significant coverage is likely to exist, not that it is presumed to exist or that notability is presumed. It's enough to make a prod inappropriate, but not enough to keep the article at AFD when it fails both WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 - the latter of which means passing WP:NCRIC is irrelevant, as she fails the broader WP:NSPORT guidelines.
 * Redirect is not appropriate, as it is ambiguous - other people with the same name are mentioned in other articles, including a Pakistani Javelin thrower. BilledMammal (talk) 03:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In that case a dab page should be created - existence of other people is no reason to deprive this person of findability via a redirect. As well as the javelin thrower there seems also to be a composer &/or singer of film theme tunes - see Saari Bhool Hamari Thi, Mujhay Sandal Kar Do and Meray Khwab Raiza Raiza. Pam  D  09:45, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The search function is more effective for that, as it will allow readers to find all people by this name, while the dab page is likely to be unmaintained and exclude many. BilledMammal (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * But you could say that of any dab page. Perhaps you don't believe in creating them at all? Pam  D  05:11, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The purpose of disambiguation pages is to help the reader to navigate quickly from the page that first appears to any of the other possible desired articles. Those that disambiguate between notable topics and significant mentions do this; the search results are often extensive and include many passing mentions on different topics from the one the reader is searching for.
 * Those that disambiguate between passing mentions do the opposite; they might provide a link to the wrong passing mention, such as linking to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers when the reader wants Pakistan women's cricket team in Australia and New Zealand in 1996–97, or they might miss passing mentions that were added more recently due to the pages not being maintained. For this, the search function is more effective. BilledMammal (talk) 15:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * For most purposes, the search function is actually pretty awful. It's great at generating a jumble of articles that contain both of two words, but not so great in providing a relevant proximity. BD2412  T 04:55, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Normally, yes, but when the name is not shared by anyone notable I believe it works better than trying to maintain a disambiguation page - and I note that we aren't going to be adding all the non-notable but mentioned John Smith's to John Smith. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep –  passes WP:NCRIC. She played for her national side in 1997, when there were hardly any Pakistani publication online. So finding any online WP:SIGCOV content about her today, is near to zero. But we can't challenge the existence of such sources in offline media, libraries, papers, magazines and books etc (WP:NCRIC also support this assumption). I'll agree with those voicing for deletion, if they can extraordinarily look into all offline medias and then claim non existence of significant coverage. Till then big noo to deletion. Radioactive  (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably keep - the arguments that have been made about a reasonable assumption that sources might exist is a fair one here I think - one appearance in a very minor match and I might suggest otherwise, but three matches against NZ and Australia means I tend to think it's reasonable, even if the team she played in was incredibly weak in comparison. Online sources will be problematic, and the gender bias in cricket sources of any kind at the time she played, especially those from south Asia, means that I have some doubts about proper in depth coverage - there have been cases in the past where we've struggled to find anything at all. In that case we would obviously, and I do mean really obviously, be looking at a redirect to an article such as List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers, if necessary, really, really obviously again, via a dab page if absolutely required - or whenever it's required. There are so many arguments in favour of this approach as opposed to deletion and I do, I'm afraid, struggle to understand the delete votes here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Redirect. No SIGCOV has been found, and more importantly, there is no evidence to suggest that coverage generally does exist for 90s Pakistani women's international cricket players. No offline sources that would potentially offer coverage have been identified, so the best option here is to redirect until someone with the requisite access can produce GNG sourcing. JoelleJay (talk) 03:08, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rugbyfan22, StickyWicket, and especially Radioactive. StAnselm (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
 * KEEP per Rugbyfan22 and StickyWicket. Passes WP:NCRIC. MelvinHans (talk) 21:13, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * NCRIC does not confer notability, it predicts whether GNG is likely to be met. If editors show GNG is not met then passing NCRIC holds very little weight. JoelleJay (talk) 04:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * And WP:NCRIC is not met, because the guideline is WP:NSPORT, and WP:SPORTCRIT #5 is failed. BilledMammal (talk) 05:14, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I wonder if someone can show me where anyone has shown that GNG is not met? Has anyone attempted to access Urdu written sources, for example? Even attempted to? To suggest that the article be deleted when an obvious and clearly appropriate redirect target exists, without even attempting to see whether there are suitable paper-based sources strikes me as being directly opposed to a reasonable expectation of behaviour. Given that the RfC proposal which applies most obviously here stated clearly that articles should be grandfathered in some way, I find the suggestion that we delete rather than redirect even odder to fathom. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Note to (re)-closing admin - this AfD was closed on 31st May, and then undone by the closer per this request. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:23, 31 May 2022 (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.