Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor Elahi

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The result was Withdrawn. SWinxy (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Manzoor Elahi

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

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

The biographies fail WP:SPORTBASIC. All information I've found about them come from sports databases, which do not confer notability as they are trivial sources with little to no standards for inclusion. Coverage of a game by the BBC and another from a Pakistani news site are both WP:ROUTINE coverage, and a very short bio mentioning the three from The Asian Age is just not enough. There is not widespread coverage of any of them to warrant an entry on Wikipedia. SWinxy (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. SWinxy (talk) 03:21, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NCRIC. The subjects played international cricket for Pakistani national team: [1], [2], [3], [4]. Insight 3 (talk) 03:43, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for Saleem Elahi. Upgrade to keep all per the discussion. This was a ridiculous nomination: he is one of the select group of sixteen players in List of centuries scored on One Day International cricket debut, but if you want to be legalistic about it, the two ESPN articles pass GNG. St Anselm (talk) 04:04, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Insight 3 @StAnselm those are all sports databases; ESPNs database is also a sports database. Those don't show coverage for notability. Notability is not inherited wrt the list. SWinxy (talk) 04:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was, of course, talking about the ESPN articles. St Anselm (talk) 05:18, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I glazed over the titles because I assumed they were part of ESPN's sports database. My b. I've read them now, and I'm coming back with concerns. All but three (A, B, C) are more than play-by-plays (routine). The deepest they go is in A, but that's still pretty shallow. SWinxy (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But you have still completely missed the point what I've been saying. My !vote concerned only Saleem Elahi and his Wikipedia article contains links to two ESPN articles (aside from database entries), neither of which you have appeared to have read. St Anselm (talk) 22:14, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I mixed up what I was saying in that comment. But I did read the articles. They are play-by-plays and don't provide in-depth coverage. A, B, and C were other articles I've found on ESPN's cricket site; I should have said that to avoid confusion. SWinxy (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you haven't if you're saying they are play-by-plays. I'm talking about these two: [5][6] St Anselm (talk) 13:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Plz read WP:NCRIC: Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they ... Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation. You can't expect detailed biographical info about a cricketer whose career was during the pre-internet era (1984 - 1995), as Pakistani sources have not been digitized like the English newspapers. Insight 3 (talk) 05:29, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What draws my attention in that wording from NCRIC is that it is likely to exist, not that it does. SNGs are useful for clarification and to presume coverage (from WP:SNG), but they do not wholly override GNG, and the presumption they make is only a piece of the notability puzzle. WP:NSPORTS explicitly states that (emphasis not mine) The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline. So even though playing at that level presumes notability, there is the need to complete the rest: providing multiple reliable sources demonstrating that. If those are not found for these brothers, then they fail the general notability guideline. SWinxy (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If we still need WP:SPORTBASIC even after the WP:NCRIC is satisfied, then there is no point for the later to be there in the guidelines. The role of WP:NCRIC is actually compensatory as it acknowledges the ground reality that sometimes, even notable cricketers may not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Insight 3 (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, SPORTBASIC is still needed. SWinxy (talk) 22:38, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep for all. What an utterly ridiculous nomination. Playing at both Test and ODI level, and having a substantial domestic career of nearly 400 matches, this guy is likely to have tonnes of sources in Pakistani print material. Plus, I'm sure amongst people's Wisden collections there are further mentions of him. I suggest in future, the nominator pays a visit to WT:CRIC, where we'd all be more than happy to held expand articles. StickyWicket (talk) 06:52, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just noticed there's more than one nomination! Just woken up!!! Adds to the bizarreness, all are of course notable and when nominating articles, please see how many domestic matches they have played (in the hundreds there will be substantial coverage someplace) and if they have played Test/ODI cricket, they have played at the pinnacle of the game, so coverage will almost certainly exist. StickyWicket (talk) 06:56, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter what they've done. I don't care about ODIs. I care about how they meet (or don't meet) the notability guidelines, and I want to see the coverage that supports your keep. SWinxy (talk) 15:32, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"I care about how they meet (or don't meet) the notability guidelines"... which has already been explained. Good luck getting rid of Test cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 18:47, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep All 3 of the subjects nominated have played international cricket for a major nation, and two of those nominated have featured in World Cups. Coverage will almost certainly exists for players like this who played at the times these players played in offline or non-English language sources. Also, all 3 of these should be discussed (if discussed at all) in separate discussions to warrant their own notability, not in bundles because they're bundles. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP All 3 of the cricket players are notable and have played cricket in the international matches and the World Cups. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - as shown by multiple editors - coverage exists if you try to find. A proper WP:BEFORE was not done and this is a clear case of WP:TRAINWRECK. I just added one article to Zahoor Elahi's biography. 2400:ADC7:112F:D000:11CF:73E1:3C02:AD50 (talk) 21:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Note The News on Sunday article about all three cricketers, who formed an important cricketing family in Pakistan. St Anselm (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now there are more sources. That is magnitudes more compelling of an argument under the notability guidelines than noting whatever scores someone got. SWinxy (talk) 03:44, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all Not helpful behaviour from the nominator. Without improving the article with sources, their motive was only to delete it without doing any WP:BEFORE. How come one says a player with 60 international appearances along with around 400 domestic matches is non-notable?? Clearly meets WP:GNG per the coverage about the player, at least enough for a player from pre-internet era.RoboCric (talk) 08:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
People keep saying I did not do the optional BEFORE search, but I very much did; I spent two-plus hours combing through all the Google results for all three people. What I came back with was what is in the nomination statement. And again again, I nor GNG cares about whatever statistics a player might have. That is not what NSPORTS is anymore. SWinxy (talk) 18:10, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case there are some serious competetence issues and you should not be mominating articles for deletion at all. The problem, of course, was that you missed the referencess already included in the article. St Anselm (talk) 18:36, 18 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing my nomination now that there has been a demonstration of notability. The keeps had the correct gut feeling. My nomination was done with a good-faith belief that, by the few sources I came across, they did not pass the notability guidelines. Now that there are a plethora of sources to support notability, this discussion may be closed. Thank you StAnslem and the IPs for finding sources to demonstrate notability. My mind has been changed, and I am proved to be incorrect. SWinxy (talk) 18:56, 18 April 2023 (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.