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. When someone who passes a SNG is reasonably challenged, as happened here, it is helpful if those advocating keep actually do more than reiterate that they pass the SNG. However, there is broad enough consensus here that despite the absence of sources there is still clearly a keep consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 23:17, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taimur Siddiq[edit]

Taimur Siddiq (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Iitianeditor (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As per Nom. Priyanjali singh (talk) 11:06, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep he has played 9 domestic games so it is not a marginal case which easily passes WP:CRIN and other sources are right here and here for WP:GNG CreativeNorth (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • CreativeNorth GNG clearly mentions that the sources have to be in depth about the subject. The sources don't say anything about the person in question at any depth.Iitianeditor (talk) 17:23, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok while I do disagree about this, as I think you are contradicting yourself by not letting Cricifno and Cricket archive count and also WP:GNG saying "but it does not need to be the main topic of the source". Anyway I think we should just agree to disagree. However he has played 9 games. With your objections to WP:CRIN mainly being that it is too inclusive, 9 first-class games clearly show he is notable. CreativeNorth (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • CreativeNorth Yup, let's agree to disagree. Thanks for being polite and civil which I'm afraid a lot of people seem unable to follow. Iitianeditor (talk) 18:15, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Individual has played in nine matches: two List A and seven T20 fixtures. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:16, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - passes WP:CRIN. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:22, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• 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 – as such arguments based on this criteria should be disregarded. Only two LA and a clutch of T20 matches played, contributing very little in any of them – averaging under 10, presumably as a specialist batsman, so very unremarkable and unlikely to have generated coverage. No sources available beyond routine and indiscriminate statistics. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:25, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Well, it apparently meets WP:CRIN. Baseball's WP:NBASE trumps the GNG, and that's fine and that works, and we end up with articles about people who we don't even know their first name. Cricket's a big deal so I suppose for cricket its the same. As a practical matter, that's how people treat it. If you want to tighten up CRIN that's a different matter. Change CRIN, don't nominate articles that meet it. Also BTW the majority or our X million articles do not meet the GNG, which is a guideline IIRC.

As always, a point to consider is: "For people searching on the string 'Taimur Siddiq', rather than taking them to this article it would be better to show them nothing, because _______." What goes in the blank? You'd want a compelling argument here.

Granted, in this case, very few people access the article -- fewer than .5 a day, which rounds to zero. I think a reasonable question to ask at the CRIN page is "this guideline is supporting articles for which the daily readership approximates zero. Is this worthwhile? Would a series of mere lists be better for players with this level of notability?" But that's an issue with the guideline, not this page in particular. Cricket is important enough that, if cricket enthusiasts are controlling the page and are too liberal in their criteria, a WP:CENT WP:RFC would maybe be in order, since cricket is pretty important.

On the other hand, we do have many articles with approximately zero readership... probably hundreds of thousands at least, articles like Mitrulinia (a fungus of extreme obscurity) and Pisgah, Virginia and so on. So maybe deleting cricket players of mind-boggling obscurity, and not funguses or populated places of mind-boggling obscurity, is just snobbery. Another point is that the First Pillar ("Wikipedia is an encyclopedia") says right off "Wikipedia... incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias". Is www.espncricinfo (the main ref for the article) a specialized encyclopedia? It says here that it is. Herostratus (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus from this RFC is that no subject specific guideline supercedes GNG, specifically sport (include NBASE), and arguments must go further than bare "meets SNG" assertions. Ideally, articles such as these would simply be merged into lists, but those lists do not exist in many cases. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:38, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC has no such consensus. The headcount was about 18-17 in favor of the proposition (that no subject specific guideline supersedes the GNG, at least for sports), which is a tie, and the strength of argument was also such that an informed and disinterested person would have to aver that that's more or less a tie too. That can never be incontrovertibly proven of course, but it's certainly a reasonable conclusion. If somebody closed it as "proposition accepted" they made a mistake, or supervoted. That's OK; we're human here, with human failings. That doesn't mean we have to pay any attention to somebody's mistake (or supervote). Herostratus (talk) 18:33, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? – "There is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline." Probably also worth remembering that consensus is not a headcount. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:45, 14 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has played nine matches at the highest domestic level. Besides, “nobody views this page” isn't a reason to delete, it's more a problem with how readers are directed to it from other pages. StickyWicket (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus in this discussion at NSPORT is that appearance count is not a reliable indicator of notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 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. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:35, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Nine FC/ListA appearances is more than enough to justify a presumption of notability. Johnlp (talk) 19:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD requires notability to be more than presumed. This recent AfD would suggest 15 matches is not enough to confirm notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:48, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I think that one should not have been deleted, and made my view known there. Johnlp (talk) 10:20, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.