Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Aamer Brohi

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus . No consensus to delete. No prejudice against any editors choosing to return this, or other cricketer articles draftified in the same run, back to main. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:12, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aamer Brohi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) J947^{( c ) (m)} 03:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(Time stamp for bot to properly relist.) J947^{(c) (m)} 03:15, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No information about the person in given sources except his name on scorecards, which is probably incorrect. Cannot be properly verified, so delete. Jack | ^{talk page} 18:47, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Query You say a single scorecard; but CricketArchive lists two List A and three Grade II matches, while ESPNcricinfo similarly lists two List A matches. Where you do you get the one figure from? Harrias ^talk 08:00, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I copied and pasted similar MfD entries. Have amended above. Even so, the point is that there is no information at all about this person other than a name on scorecards. The name may well be incorrect, a proper verification is not possible and I still think this should be deleted. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:21, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

He was born on 1 September 1979, and actually spells his name Aamir Brohi. But none of that comes from a reliable source. However, CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo are both reliable sources, and they tell us he played two notable matches. That said, I favour GNG over NCRIC, so I won't stand in the way of it being deleted. Harrias ^talk 10:37, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete same as others. No valid sources. The comments just prove the whole page is wrong Legacypac (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep--The cricinfo and cricketarchive sources manages to clinch SNG.Remember that this' s not an AfD--a venue where even I will be vouching for deletion on failure to comply GNG.But most such discussions results in a Keep.Winged Blades ^Godric 14:12, 11 September 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.