Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafarullah Jan


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Zafarullah Jan

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Article does not assert notability per Notability (sports). Zafarullah Jan meets none of the three requirements nor has he met the basic requirements of participating in an international event. Originally listed as CSD but article creator removed CSD tag. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда . 19:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - "A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she has... appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". Jan has played first-class cricket, which is a major form of cricket, at the highest domestic level in Pakistan.  He meets one of the requirements of WP:CRIN and the requirements of WP:ATH. Unfortunately there seems to be little known about this guy, but that isn't rare among Pakistani cricketers. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:54, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment: Per WP:ATH “A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.” So far only one source has been given: the Cricket Archive which looks to me to be a trivial source. I will concede that it he did apparently play in the first-class cricket which apparently is at the highest domestic level in Pakistan. According to the one source he only played in one game and he seemingly did not play very much in that game. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  21:12, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - CricketArchive is an authority when it comes to information on cricket, as such is a highly reliable source. There's also no "apparently" about either of those two facts: He did play first-class cricket, and first-class cricket (alongside List A and Twenty20) is the highest level of domestic cricket in the ten full member nations of the International Cricket Council. We have plenty of cricketers who played one first-class match: Neville Shelmerdine for example simply turned up.  At the end of the day, cricket is very selective on what is deemed notable: as they've played first-class cricket, regardless of the number of sources (note sources for living people require at least one reliable source, of which Jan has), then they're deemed notable, once again by WP:CRIN and WP:ATH.  This AfD back in 2010 is very similar,  or even more extreme, an AfD for Hooker (Kent cricketer). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:52, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Still does not meet the basic notability requirement of multiple sources. Only one. Even the one listed below is just the same information regurgitated.  Since neither is a newsworthy source nor a printed material (just stats) I do not see how this is not trivial.  Regardless of whether he played at the top level or not, there is no non-trivial sources. Much like the two AfDs that you listed above, this AfD will be responded to by mostly WikiProject Cricket members, so it won't be deleted. I would wholeheartedly withdraw my nomination if someone could find multiple non-trivial published sources. -- Тимофей ЛееСуда .  22:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) There's also ESPNcricinfo which presents exactly the same information as CricketArchive (but there are only so many ways to present this kind of data). While Jan has passed the requirements of having played in at least one major cricket match, in these situations an article of this sort is worth so little I can't vote keep, but neither can I happily vote delete because "I don't like it" isn't policy. I'm sure this article will be kept, but if it was to be deleted it would not be a terrible loss to the encyclopedia. Nev1 (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed Nev, but I do fear we open up to attack from the mob that has in the past attempted to have less notable cricketers deleted. I'm quite the deletionist, I'll openly admit that!  But, when it comes to major cricket and those who have played it, I feel our job is to provide full coverage of it, be it Wilfred Rhodes 1,110 matches, or Jan's one.  As Nev points out, there's only so many ways to present data on cricketers - even ones with distinguished careers, such as Neil McCorkell who I'm working on, are presented in the same way, other than book sources which are hard to come by, it wasn't until he passed his 100th birthday the other day that multiple sources appeared online.  While it wouldn't be missed, first-class is first-class, saying one player can't have article because he played once as opposed to fifteen times, is being selective and doesn't represent full coverage. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:20, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. He qualifies under WP:CRIN and WP:ATH. Doesn't mean that it's not in need of work. Johnlp (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep' per Johnlp extra 999  ( talk ) 03:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Johnlp says it well. --Dweller (talk) 23:03, 8 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep—Meets a subject-matter notability guideline (WP:CRIN). Needs work, but that's not cause for deletion.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 23:43, 10 April 2012 (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.