Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umar Draz


 * 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. Subject-specific notability guidelines (SNG) do not override the general notability guideline (GNG). SNGs are simply shortcuts that say, "a topic will probably have enough sources to fulfill GNG if it satisfies the SNG criteria". In the end, it needs to be shown that a topic can satisfy GNG, period. So, while the count of votes here is roughly equal on each side, the argument to delete is far stronger. Reyk's comments at the bottom pretty much sum it up. ‑Scottywong | [confess] || 21:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Umar Draz

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article clearly doesn't meet WP:GNG. The sources in the article are simply directory/stats listings, which I believe do not establish notability. Have performed a WP:BEFORE and nothing came up. I've nominated two articles previously which were similar and they have been deleted (here and here). Editors over there cited the WP:CRIN guideline which is being debated itself and for it to change, precedent is needed, clearly those guidelines aren't being accepted and seem to me like they'll never be able to satisfy the GNG. Another argument given by editors on similar pages is given that sources in other languages might exist, I am thoroughly unconvinced by this as none of these sources have materialized and I feel like it's an argument which can be used anywhere; all an editor has to do is claim that sources exist. Please note I am a new editor and this is my understanding after trying my best to read as many guidelines and past discussions as possible, I could have easily made mistake, but I am just trying to be bold. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To discuss above valid comments
 * Delete Fails GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. A great example of why there is consensus at NSPORT to rewrite NCRIC and remove the low-bar domestic appearance criteria. Only one solitary FC match played, contributing very little, so very unlikely to have generated any substantial coverage. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. wjematherplease leave a message... 22:31, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets NCRIC. Mass-nominating articles (at a rate of >=3/min) from one third-world country during a world-wide lockdown is not the way to change notability guidelines. Meets an SNG and I put no stock on the assertion that a search for GNG has been exhausted; it's hard enough to achieve it during normal times and with better-studied subjects in more affluent parts of the world. AFD is mess enough without trying to take over from the village pump and other talk pages. Change the guidelines first, then AFD will follow suit, not the other way around. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:40, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep meets the notability requirements.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Passes WP:CRIN. CreativeNorth (talk) 16:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment the consensus at this RFC is that "meets SNG" assertions are insufficient arguments at AfD. As noted above, there is also consensus at NSPORT that NCRIC/CRIN is far too permissive with respect to domestic matches played, and match tally is not a reliable indicator (especially when that tally is low). As such, evidence is required (i.e. substantial reliable coverage outside of stats databases) to show that the subject meets GNG/BIO/SPORTBASIC. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:54, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of National Bank of Pakistan cricketers, which would need to be created. StickyWicket (talk) 19:32, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nightfury 21:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete- since there is no list of national bank of Pakistan players to merge to. This article is a substub about a non-notable player with a short and unsuccessful career, thus for whom no actual biographical information is known. Lots of these non-articles have been deleted or merged over the years. Per Notability_(sports), we should not have standalone articles if the only coverage is database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, which is exactly what this is. If the cricket sub-SNG conflicts with that, then too bad for the cricket sub-SNG. Reyk YO! 12:40, 29 September 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.