Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Baseer (cricketer)

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. (non-admin closure) Linguist ^talk|contribs 20:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Baseer (cricketer)

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

As per recent discussion Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#The criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive : there is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline. Arguments must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS in the context of an Articles for Deletion discussion. Therefore I propose this article for deletion. This player is nothing more than WP:MILL Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. He played first-class cricket and therefore meets the requirements of WP:CRIN. If he was a WP:MILL player, he wouldn't have been good enough to play for Hyderabad. Whatever may have been discussed at the "village pump", there has been no change to the wording of WP:NSPORTS which emphasises in bold that "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". The SSC is summarised by WP:NCRIC on same page in respect of cricket and the full notability criteria for cricket is at WP:CRIN. As for your desire to delete articles, I would point out that our core policies are WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV and WP:V. This article passes them all and we are building an encyclopaedia, not pandering to a small group of WP:IDONTLIKEIT merchants. In addition, there is WP:NOTPAPER so you are not saving needed space. The only problem with this article was that it was a WP:STUB that needed a bit of work doing to improve its structure and presentation. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the FAQ on NSPORTS says (my emphasis):

A1: The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them.[1][2][3][4] Wikipedia's standard for including an article about a given person is not based on whether or not he/she has attained certain achievements, but on whether or not the person has received appropriate coverage in reliable sources, in accordance with the general notability guideline. Also refer to Wikipedia's basic guidance on the notability of people for additional information on evaluating notability.

That element of the FAQ seems to me to be consistently ignored in discussions such as these but would seem, to me, to detail the nature of the relationship between the GNG and NSPORTS. In that context I can understand how someone could vote for deletion in these circumstances. It may be reasonable to suggest that with time and access to local news reporting that proper, in depth sources could be found. It's the balance of those two arguments that I feel should be the focus of discussion here.

The reason why the FAQ is "consistently ignored" is because it is only an FAQ. The operative condition is "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below" which is the second sentence in the page introduction. You cannot possibly claim that something in an FAQ carries the same weight. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, adding a bunch of scorecards as references - which are what the top 4 refs now in the article are - strikes me as not representing in depth sources which deal with the subject. I'd also argue very strongly indeed that doing so is OR. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot possibly be OR because WP:NOR states: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist". CricketArchive is a reliable, published source. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:51, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral The point of WP:CRIN etc. is, as Blue Square Thing alludes to above. We suppose that anyone who meets CRIN could meet WP:N via WP:GNG. Locally, there are probably significant news sources available that provide non-trivial information. However, at the moment, with the sources used, this article does fail to meet WP:N, as WP:GNG requires "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention." Scorecards are clearly not significant coverage of an individual. Harrias ^talk 17:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the probable existence of these news sources is a significant reason for keeping the article. After all, there is no time limit for bringing an article up to C-class, B-class, GA or FA. The player is notable per SSC because he is in two respected online sources (Lugnuts found him at CI too, btw, but his name has a different spelling). I disagree with your penultimate sentence because NSPORTS clearly asserts that the subject must meet EITHER GNG OR SSC (see above). If there is a contradiction between the two it needs to be sorted out quick but just imagine the problems for all sporting projects if these "deletionists" get their way. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that is exactly what the RfC linked above rejected. The consensus there was that a SSG did not overrule the GNG. Harrias ^talk 21:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you are not seriously asserting that the views of a small number of editors in one forum, that has no direct connection with GNG or NSPORTS, dictate that NSPORTS must be radically altered. The topic needs to be discussed at NSPORTS itself and consensus achieved there. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: Passes WP:CRIN. We've been through this dozens of times before. St Anselm (talk) 18:50, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep If you want to change WP:NCRIC or WP:NSPORT, then start an RFC there. Until then, we use those guidelines. This article passes those guidelines, and this is not a suitable place to try and fight the system. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Joseph2302: There is no need to start RFC. This was already done and it's the very reason why I nominated this page for deletion, because consensus was already reached. WP:DICC Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 22:47, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jone Rohne Nester: I think a consensus among one small group of editors in one forum that is not directly involved with either GNG or NSPORTS can be taken as advisory and not compulsory. You are a very inexperienced editor and you need to learn much more about how the site works. If you are going to raise an AfD for every single stub or weak start on the site you are going to waste an awful lot of time. You have seen how easy it was to expand this article using two sources into a start-class one; the same is true of 99.9% of stubs. If you want to use AfD, concentrate on articles that really do not belong on WP and which almost certainly fail one of the four core policies: WP:N, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V. It should have been obvious to you that this article was genuine and you should simply have added attention tags to request structure, more narrative, more references. I see that you also need to learn how the PROD process operates and I strongly recommend that you learn about site procedures before coming on here making dogmatic (and grossly incorrect) statements such as "this player is run of the mill". What a waste of time. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:39, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: Since you are starting to call names ("deletionists", "small community") and fanatically attacking everyone like unleashed dog, blindly ignoring what other editors are saying, It's quite obvious that you are not bringing any sense into this discussion. You don't need to prove me anything,- all what I did is proposed this article for deletion, so that others can decide to delete it or not. As far as I can see, so far the ONLY argument is "meets WP:CRIN" and besides sport directories no other sources has been provided. If that's the case and majority thinks we should keep this article, unlike you I have no problem with that.Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 15:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Jone Rohne Nester: These comments are bang out of order and are largely untrue. What you have said is a blatant breach of WP:CIVIL and that is on top of the breach of WP:BLP that I warned you about. We will discuss this at WP:ANI. Jack | ^{talk page} 16:07, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@BlackJack: Sure go ahead, and show everyone how you are dealing with anyone who disagrees with you about cricket. Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 16:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

OBVIOUS keep and a very UNTHINKING nomination. Hyderabad cricket team represents the state of Telangana, population: 35 million. Cricket is most popular sport. So Abdul baser was once in the top 11 players in the whole state ... big headlines in his hometown, tv interviews etc. In England a player from a football club in a town of 20,000 gets an article. In England a player for a second division county Championship team gets an article. He is only in the best 200 players (maybe) out of 54 million (England population). But an Indian who is in the best 11 out of 35 million gets no article?? And they say Wikipedia has no racism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bandy Batinkin (talk • contribs) 09:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a couple of press references perhaps? They don't need to be in English, but something that would provide proper media coverage would be helpful. If it helps then I think there are some users who would question whether players from other countries should be the subject of an article if there is not suitable sourcing either. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: Your final sentence does not make sense. What are you saying? Jack | ^{talk page} 13:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That it's not just Indian players where people might question notability. I think it's possible to argue that there are British players where it would be very difficult to show notability per the GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CRIN is actually very strict on notability and if a player who can only, for the present, be found in CA or CI is shown by them to meet CRIN, then it can be assumed in 99.99% of such cases that he will also meet GNG when someone can check the appropriate Wisden or a contemporary local newspaper. As a result, CRIN can be trusted and should be supported by everyone in WP:CRIC. All this guff about GNG re people who meet CRIN is a total waste of everyone's time. We are only concerned with GNG if a player fails CRIN but does meet GNG because he has broken a world record in minor cricket and got himself into the national news, for example: like that kid in India who scored a thousand. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:43, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NSPORT - "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", which it does by meeting WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As one of the authors of the RfC that is partially referenced in the nomination, I might make a couple of points: 1) The close also states: "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations." The nomination here does little more than reference that RfC and then throw this article into discussion. If the nominator wanted to make a single-article test case, then they probably should have made that clear. 2) The discussion there reached no conclusions about the exclusivity of any particluar guidelines, and certainly not on WP:NCRIC. 3) The discussion there reached a clear conclusion that WP:NSPORTS and WP:NCRIC do not override WP:GNG. While discussions within projects have historically tried to advocate that their subject-specific guidelines (SSG's) do override the GNG, this third point is not new to that discussion and in fact re-iterates long-standing project-wide consensus. Discussions of this sort on the Village Pump are often preferred since they have such project-wide visibility. There is currently more discussion about this guideline relationship at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Proposal re GNG/SSC relationship and much of the discussion above is about points and arguments probably better-placed there. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Passes WP:CRIN. The RfC said not to flood AfD with indiscriminate nominations based solely on that. Nominator appears to have done that with this and others. Knock if off, close this, and stop wasting everybody's time. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can someone please provide third party reference/source about this player to verify his GNG notability? So far there are only two sources on the reflist: 6 links from the same sport directory which is not publicly accessible and 1 link from ESPNcricinfo which is a score card. 0 results about this player on Google News, no results on general Google search and so on. In English or in other languages would be fine. Thank you Jone Rohne Nester (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2017 (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.