Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shahid Ilyas


 * 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. Inclusion requires that WP:GNG is met, which requires WP:SIGCOV (significant coverage) from multiple, reliable sources. This means coverage that is more than trivial and mentions more than stats. Whether it is cricket, football, underwater basket weaving, whatever, it doesn't matter. That is the core of what is required to pass the first test for inclusion for any article, regardless of what any other guidelines on notability says, simply because they all derive their authority FROM WP:GNG. Through this lens, weighing the !vote not on their numbers as much as on the strength of their policy based rationale, I see a consensus to delete. Dennis Brown - 2&cent; 23:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Shahid Ilyas

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable cricketer, nothing significant in my searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  21:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 21:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete: yet another probably-permanent stub article created by the wretched Lugnuts. versacespace  talk to me  00:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @, you are to !vote as you deem fit & personally I agree that the article isn’t a notable one, but what you are not allowed to do is refer to one of our most active editors @, as “wretched” not now, not ever, I’m not sure why you chose that word but that may constitute WP:NPA. Celestina007 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , he's one of the most active editors because every 30 seconds he creates a new permanent stub article. Regardless, he's (obviously, but maybe that's not very easy to understand through a computer screen without any clear tone) not actually "wretched" and I apologize for not using a sarcasm or joke template. versacespace  talk to me  00:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought it was more of a song reference! "...The clouds will part and the sky cracks open ..." I'm all for hijinks and antics, but sometimes it needs to be clear it's not actually in WP:NPA terrority.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * These sort of personally attacks are not acceptable at Afd, this should probably be hidden by someone who knows how. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps WP:FISHSLAP would have been more appropriate.Pontificalibus 07:21, 4 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete — I agree with the nom. Notability is clearly not met here. Celestina007 (talk) 00:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * thanks for your comments above. I've added some more info about this chap, below. I'm not trying to make you change your rationale, but some extra notes and sources may be handy. Thanks again.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Despite only playing in 2 F/C and 3 LA matches, he meets WP:NCRIC. Furthermore, he was selected to represent the Pakistan U19 team at an international tournament, in the form of the 2012 Under-19 Cricket World Cup. While playing an U19 in itself is not a pass for notabilty, he was showing some sort of form/talent to get picked for the national team, having been on the radar since his under-15 days. There's also this article from The News International with the headline "Shahid Ilyas the star as Islamabad enter U16 final". Now as a worst-case outcome, and due to him playing for a couple of teams domestically, the WP:ATD would be to redirect to the 2012 Under-19 Cricket World Cup squads. - I don't want to sway your keep/delete thoughts, but what are yours with regards to the ATD + redirect, if it came down to it? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Has played a few matches, but I'm not seeing enough coverage to pass GNG really. Using a similar precedent to that used by WP:FOOTY where a player with one or a few matches, but no significant coverages, is redirected/deleted. Has played for two different sides so no suitable WP:ATD per WP:XY for me. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not what WP:XY is for. Peter James (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Consensus seems to be changing back to what it had been for years, now we know Lewis (baseball) was on the Main Page last year. The football artices could probably have been expanded, but because of failures in coronavirus testing, and the lockdowns and other restrictions resulting from those failures, there has been no access to libraries in the UK. Peter James (talk) 17:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure what point you're trying to make, But he has played 2 games for one side and 3 for another, while also playing for Pakistan U19. He has no standout club so there isn't a suitable one to redirect too. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If there is a redirect relevant content can be added. Peter James (talk) 19:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - Everything here is cited to single source (Cricinfo) and this really seems to be a WP:GNG fail. Agree that NPA terminology should not be used about other editors. Articles like this should not be mass-created without first getting consensus to do so per WP:MASSCREATION (and this means consensus to do so, not just no consensus to oppose) and yes this includes articles created by cutting/pasting. Slow down. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not sure how WP:MASSCREATION applies here (or to any AfD), as that only applies to bots. And if you look at my keep comments, you'll see at least one non-trivial source that isn't from Cricinfo.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 10:24, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:MASSCREATION applies to this article's creation, and should be understood by the creator. WP:MASSCREATION does not only apply to bots, as it also applies to "semi-automated" article-creation, a process which includes cutting/pasting. FOARP (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No it doesn't. - "Assisted or semi-automated editing covers specifically lower-speed tools and scripts that can assist users to make decisions". As I've said time and time again, I have never used tools or scripts to create content. Please stop making false statements about me. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 11:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * See WP:MEATBOT. I really don't know why you're still doing these mass-creations after the community was so clear about not wanting them to happen in your recent ANI. No statement I've made here is false. FOARP (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Again, irrelevant. Unlike your WP:HOUNDing of me. So did you just happen to chance upon this AfD? Please stop following me around to make a WP:POINT.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:16, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Lugnuts, I am far from the first editor you have accused of this. My record at AFD speaks for itself. FOARP (talk) 18:31, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Cricinfo is not the only coverage, other possible sources include and those already mentioned in this discussion. Peter James (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My voting always tends to lead towards the keep side if possible or if it's likely that coverage exists, but none of these are significant coverage, just match reports and another database link. If something did exist I'd imagine it'd most likely be on his Pakistan U19 career though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is a description there that is significant coverage, not only data. Peter James (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Personally I don't think that Cricbuzz bio is significant coverage, and even if it is it's only one source and multiple are required. ESPNCricinfo do bios like that on players and they don't tend to be considered as significant coverage. I'd love there to be coverage as he's played for two of the great name Pakistani sides in Pakistan International Airlines CC and Pakistan Television CC, but so far there isn't enough there for me. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is already significant coverage in sources used in the article or mentioned in this discussion. Peter James (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't believe any of them to be significant coverage either, they're just match reports and squad lists, that second one Lugnuts has linked is the closest for me but is still just a match report of him doing well instead of significant coverage. Obviously these are just my opinions though and others might hold different views. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Think you'll find you're the wretched one versacespace, so do one, especially when one of your four new article contributions is this shite. StickyWicket (talk) 21:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the sources found come close to meeting WP:GNG; they do not constitute significant coverage, being routine mentions in match reports (the closest to SigCov being from u16s cricket), wide-ranging statistical databases and a short uninformative profile (which is by far the closest to SigCov we get). The pass of NCRIC is trivial, so GNG must be met and it isn't. No suitable ATD redirect target. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Came here after a link at the ANI discussion; may have noticed this anyways. None of the available sources in the article or in the AfD pass WP:GNG. WP:NSPORTS requires GNG to be ultimately met (it's in the second sentence), so any SNG pass is irrelevant considering the lack of available coverage. SportingFlyer  T · C  21:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I also followed the ANI link and I agree with Peter about other sources. Shahid Ilyas has made five appearances in top-class matches so he easily meets the cricket SNG. Although ESPN is the only source actually cited in the article, it is nonetheless reliable and there must be offline coverage – sufficient to meet GNG – in books and journals such as the Wisden Almanack, the Playfair Annual and their Pakistan equivalents. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to closing sysop. Like a lot of people, I am sick and tired of joining AFD and ANI discussions to see FOARP, whose idea of a reliable source is the Daily Lies, using the ludicrous terms "meatbot" and "masscreation" everywhere he goes in his pathetic vendetta against Lugnuts. I'm also sick and tired of seeing juvenile crap from VerspaceSpace, such as that unacceptable jibe at the top of this discussion. I think it's about time someone in the sysop team took a long, hard look at that pair. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:02, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This is just as unacceptable a comment per WP:5P4 as the one VersaceSpace made. I strongly suggest that you strike it. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I see. So one of these two is hounding Lugnuts and the other is openly insulting him but, by asking a sysop to investigate their conduct, I too am guilty of breaching a core policy? Could it be that you are an accessory who is also hounding Lugnuts by following him hither and thither to try and stop him from building the encyclopaedia? No Great Shaker (talk) 10:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * You posted a link at ANI regarding VersaceSpace's conduct before posting this here. FOARP's conduct has not been subject to any ANI, and I'd be surprised if you would be able to substantiate any sort of behavioural issue claim against them, and regardless of any behavioural issues it shouldn't invalidate anything they've said at this discussion. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, you are entitled to be surprised and you are entitled to your opinion on validation, but hounding and insulting other editors is a serious breach of 5P4 and asking the closing sysop to take action is simply alerting the sysop to such breaches. I suggest we agree to disagree and move on. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think FOARP is truly hounding Lugnuts, ANI is that way. It has no bearing on this discussion. And you should still strike your comment. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete - lacks coverage to meet GNG, which is the bare minimum for inclusion. Megtetg34 (talk) 22:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep. I detect a distinct lack of WP:BEFORE. My searches turned up three independent reliable sources without any difficulty at all, including a 2008 article in a major newspaper which names him in the headline and was a "Top Story" on the day it was published; all now added to the article. He has played two first-class matches, which is a clear pass of WP:CRIN Test #1. If you don't like the WP:CONSENSUS in that essay, whose origin is in 2005, open a discussion and try to get it changed. Narky Blert (talk) 12:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:YOUNGATH specifically excludes youth sports coverage from GNG, which is the article you posted (regarding a under 16 match), Wisden just has statistics, the Pakistan cricket board just has statistics, both failing WP:SPORTCRIT. None of them demonstrate a WP:GNG pass. SportingFlyer  T · C  12:35, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you know perfectly well that is not using the 2008 article to define notability, which is the point of WP:YOUNGATH. Notability rests with the fact that Shahid is a first-class cricketer, citing ESPN. The piece about his youth career is additional biographical material being used to expand the article. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Which sources meet WP:GNG? SportingFlyer  T · C  14:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * YOUNGATH is about school sport. I do not see how it extends to playing in a representative match for the capital of Pakistan, and a report in the largest circulation (140,000) English-language newspaper in the country. I wonder what I might have found if I'd looked at page 2 of the Google search? Narky Blert (talk) 14:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

The fact that multiple sources have been identified is enough because GNG states that " multiple sources are generally expected", which is fair enough. GNG is only one part of WP:N because, to remind you:


 * A topic is presumed to merit an article if:


 * It meets either the general notability guideline (GNG) below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG) listed in the box on the right; and
 * It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.

As Shahid is a first-class cricketer with five appearances in top-class matches, he meets the SNG so he is presumed notable. The article isn't excluded for WP:NOT reasons, so there isn't a problem. If you are able to rebut the presumption, can you please outline your case to support rebuttal? No Great Shaker (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * To repeat my !vote above, none of the sources constitute significant coverage, a core component of GNG, since they say nothing about Shahid other than confirming his presence on a cricket field and one brief synopsis of his performance in a junior match. They are passing mentions and listings in routine sports reporting, nothing more. We all know that the presumption afforded by the cricket SNG is extremely weak and cannot be relied on as a guide to the existence of significant coverage; hence the current work in rewriting it before it gets canned altogether. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Reconsider WP:N condition - Forgive me if I'm missing something here but it looks to me as if the wording of WP:N that I've just quoted above has been misconstrued here when people have talked about notability. The subject must meet either the GNG part of WP:N or the SNG part. I personally think there should be more than one reliable source in an article and I agree with the GNG request (not requirement) that "multiple sources are generally expected". Shahid Ilyas now has more than one source and he meets the terms of the SNG, having played in five top-class matches, so he must be presumed notable unless the presumption can be rebutted or for some reason the article breaches WP:NOT.

I'd like to ask everyone who has contributed to the AFD so far to consider the above, just to ensure that there has not been any misunderstanding about the GNG or SNG aspect of the WP:N requirement. So, pinging, , , , , , , , , , , , ,. I think that's everyone. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I think there was an RfC somewhere in 2017 saying GNG should be met. SportingFlyer will probably be able to link as I believe he wrote it. It's just not very well enforced at AfD as football and olympics AfDs seemed to be kept just for passing NFOOTY or NOLY, whereas in almost all cricket AfDs it ends up being judged on GNG. WP:N should really be updated as it is confusing and I mentioned it as an issue in the beginning of the NSPORTS discussions (probably before the proposals can't remember). I'm all for keeping articles if I believe it likely there to be coverage, but I don't think there is enough for this player given when his career was. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:46, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with NGS. WP:N expressly includes both WP:GNG and WP:SNG, as alternatives. Narky Blert (talk) 14:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Community consensus is clear that NSPORTS (and its sub-SNGs, such as NCRIC) do not supercede GNG – there are countless discussions to confirm this, including recent ones at both NSPORT and N, and an RFC in 2017. In addition, the presumption offered by NSPORTS is that the subject will meet GNG; i.e. it does not supercede GNG. What we are seeing at this AFD is that GNG is not being met, therefore the presumption has been rebutted. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:54, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wjemather's correct. The overall general Wikipedia guideline is that either a SNG or GNG needs to be met, true, but SNGs are weird things and work in different ways depending on the subject. For instance, a professor simply has to meet NPROF, because the sources notable professors receive aren't always secondary or independent while still being reliable, and a populated place only needs to meet WP:GEOLAND (though at what point GEOLAND ends is up for debate right now.) Sports SNGs are supposed to be written to predict when the GNG will be met, i.e. almost every article covered by the sports SNG should pass GNG. Other SNGs do this too: for instance, our SNG for authors has a different set of rules than the GNG, but is source-based, meaning if you can find a couple reviews the author's probably notable. Furthermore, for the vast majority of subjects on the site, if a stand-alone article doesn't meet GNG, they can get deleted, even if the SNG is technically met. I didn't write the 2017 RfC but I did write several of the drafts for WP:SNG, but we clearly wouldn't be bringing cricket articles that met the SNG to AfD if "meets SNG, must keep" worked in practice: we're here in order to ensure Wikipedia as reliable a source as possible, by doing a source search to make sure we have enough information to write a stand-alone article about a subject. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:BASIC and WP:SPORTCRIT which all make it clear that significant coverage in reliable sources is needed. WP:WHYN explains why we can't have an article consisting of a few sentences based on statistics. Pontificalibus 14:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are more than statistics; the relevant guideline is WP:NSPORTS, not WP:NCORP. Peter James (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The sources are a stats. The ESPN Cricinfo source doesn't contain a single sentence about him, the match report simply says that he "was the star of the day for winners Islamabad. He first lifted his team from a precarious 85 for five with an splendid unbeaten 44 at number seven to raise their total to respectability." That's basically stats converted to a sentence, certainly no basis for a biography. The purpose of NSPORT is to determine whether a topic "is likely to meet the general notability guideline" so it's correct to judge this by GNG.Pontificalibus 15:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That isn't all there is, or the only source. Also the guideline says at the top: "general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria". Peter James (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No one has dug up any sources apart from stats and that match report. As to NSPORT you have selectively quoted a sentence concerning the citing of sources. The guideline makes it very clear the SNG criteria exist to help assess whether GNG is met. In this case GNG is not met.—--Pontificalibus 17:20, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There are other sources mentioned in this discussion. Peter James (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What on earth has GNG got to do with it? The article passes an SNG, a different criterion under N altogether. Narky Blert (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The second sentence of the "applicable guidelines and policies" of WP:NSPORTS says In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. If we look for sources and determine the GNG isn't met, then we can't keep the article. There's a 2017 RfC confirming this, but I don't have the link ready. Furthermore, sports SNGs are supposed to be written to reflect that GNG will be met. WP:NCRIC currently does not. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * GNG is met, if the sources mentioned in the AFD are included and not just those already in the article. But it has never been a requirement, only a guideline, the real policies are WP:Verifiability, WP:Not and WP:NPOV, and the fundamental principles are more important. The SNG attempts to address WP:Not in a more WP:NPOV way, avoiding systemic bias and long discussions every time there's an apparently borderline case. Peter James (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * None of this is true: GNG is not met when you include the sources mentioned at this AfD, as I've written elsewhere (match reports, youth sports coverage, or statistical databases only.) Furthermore, appealing to some sort of "higher law" when almost every AfD ultimately looks at whether WP:GNG, including all of the recent cricket AfDs, actually further proves the point that the sourcing here isn't good enough for a stand-alone article. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:32, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * GNG doesn't exclude youth sports coverage. Peter James (talk) 10:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No, but WP:YOUNGATH does. SportingFlyer  T · C  14:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That doesn't replace the GNG, or exclude coverage from qualifying for it. Peter James (talk) 15:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're reading - it very clearly excludes types of coverage related to young athletes. A six-paragraph match report about a U16 match in which he's mentioned in the headline and only four sentences about his participation in the match in the body, which is the sourcing hinge on which his notability currently rests, is clearly excluded by the young athlete guideline. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That part of the SNG is about whether "High school and pre-high school athletes" meet the SNG, and is not relevant here. It has no effect on the GNG. Peter James (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * A U16 competition is clearly high school-aged... SportingFlyer  T · C  19:02, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That guideline is clearly about whether a young athlete would be likely to meet the GNG; it doesn't exclude coverage from being considered for GNG, particularly when that is not the only coverage and a different SNG is met. Peter James (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The guideline literally excludes coverage: The second clause excludes the majority of local coverage in both news sources and sports specific publications. It especially excludes using game play summaries, statistical results, or routine interviews as sources to establish notability. The single article here is a game play summary, and whether the SNG is met is irrelevant. But I'm not going to change your mind. SportingFlyer  T · C  19:31, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * GNG doesn't say that; it's only the SNG, which is one that doesn't replace GNG. If the SNG could be used an alternative to GNG, the article would have been kept by now based on WP:NCRIC, just as all baseball articles that meet the baseball SNG are kept. Peter James (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Wjemather, SportingFlyer, and Pontificalibus have it right. NSPORT actually is very explicit that it is subordinate to GNG. This is literally in the first sentence, and is further expanded in the FAQs:
 * and
 * and most relevant:.
 * The only reason N says "GNG or SNG" is to cover the very few SNGs which do supersede GNG, such as NPROF. NSPORT is not one of those. JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete. The relevant guideline is GNG SIGCOV, which has emphatically not been demonstrated. Match reports and passing mentions like those linked above are clearly not SIGCOV! JoelleJay (talk) 06:16, 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.