- 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 Draftify. General agreement that the article needs more work and sources with significant coverage in order to meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude talk 07:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Habib Ahmed
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Habib Ahmed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. HeinzMaster ( talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- He has a Wisden obituary, which is usually a sign that there is much more coverage available. It's not cited, and I won't be able to add it today, but it's a good indicator that if we were able to access sources - and we're almost totally reliant on printed sources for the era in which the bloke played - that we'd find scads. The commonality of the name and the era and where he played means it looks as if it's difficult to find early accessible internet sources however, which is a shame as with a career that long we'd find a bunch. I'm sure people will object to a redirect for various reasons, but I'm not sure what else we'll be able to do here - I guess a redirect to whichever team he played more most frequently in the Ranji would be best, unless any India-based editors can find more in paper archives or in local non-English language sources. I'll need access to CricketArchive to figure out which that is though. It would be a shame to lose an article about an obviously notable non-white, non-anglophone person however.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
05:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- If we were looking at a redirect here, the List of Hyderabad cricketers would be the best choice - that's the team he played much more frequently for. The list needs updating at some point as well. I am minded towards keeping based on the Wisden obit though. They really don't give those away these days. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Played in 61 first-class matches, which makes the nomination quite frankly odd. Given the amount of matches he played in, there is undoubtedly coverage in print media from the era. He was afforded an obituary by Wisden, which shows his notability as a cricketer. Passes WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. StickyWicket ( talk) 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this claimed likely existence of sources sufficient to meet
WP:NRV which requires
"verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability"
?
- Is this claimed likely existence of sources sufficient to meet
WP:NRV which requires
- Where is this obituary? If you look up his name along with wisden obituary, nothing shows up, neither does anything on Wisden page. Participation in some matches doesn't make you notable nor pass WP:GNG [1] HeinzMaster ( talk) 16:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's here. You'll notice the different way the name is transliterated. You might want to double check if there are any other versions of the name - this is very common for names from the subcontinent and can cause all sorts of problems when you're looking for references. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per StickyWicket. St Anselm ( talk) 04:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that there is the reasonable assumption that this player should pass WP:GNG in offline coverage and non-English language coverage with the career he had and with the obituary that we already have as well. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify due to lack of significant coverage. Passing NCRIC does not mean that notability is presumed; that SNG merely tells us that SIGCOV is likely to exist. The probable existence of sources is not enough, they actually need to be presented here and at least one needs to be added to the article per NSPORTS. The obituary is routine and not sufficient to meet SIGCOV. I propose draftification instead of outright deletion to give folks time to add these sources so that the article might be saved. – dlthewave ☎ 12:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever opinion you might be of about other things, a Wisden obituary is not in any way routine. They don't give them away in any sense and tonnes of well known players don't get one.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
13:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps "routine" wasn't the right word, but that very short obituary really isn't the type of in-depth writing that would contribute to SIGCOV. The fact that Wisden is selective about who gets an obituary doesn't mean that the person is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards. Again, we need SIGCOV sourcing to be present in the article in order to keep it per
WP:SPORTBASIC. –
dlthewave
☎
15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a jolly good indicator that much more writing about the person is likely to exist though - because of the selective nature. I mean, if we really have to have any form of sports notability guideline at all - and I'm not at all sure that any of them serve any practical purpose at all right now - then "got a Wisden obituary" is probably about the level to have them at.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's why I !voted to draftify instead of delete so that sources can eventually be added if they are found. We do in fact have a sports notability guideline and it doesn't mention Wisden obituaries or anything similar; you might consider opening an RfC if you'd like to add this, however it would be on a "sources are likely to exist" basis. The fact is that our guidelines don't presume notability in situations like this, and for sports figures community consensus is that sources actually have to be found and added to the article. This wouldn't even pass the AfC process as is. – dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a jolly good indicator that much more writing about the person is likely to exist though - because of the selective nature. I mean, if we really have to have any form of sports notability guideline at all - and I'm not at all sure that any of them serve any practical purpose at all right now - then "got a Wisden obituary" is probably about the level to have them at.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps "routine" wasn't the right word, but that very short obituary really isn't the type of in-depth writing that would contribute to SIGCOV. The fact that Wisden is selective about who gets an obituary doesn't mean that the person is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards. Again, we need SIGCOV sourcing to be present in the article in order to keep it per
WP:SPORTBASIC. –
dlthewave
☎
15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever opinion you might be of about other things, a Wisden obituary is not in any way routine. They don't give them away in any sense and tonnes of well known players don't get one.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
13:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 18:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Blue Square Thing: if a high probability exists of additional sources that can solidify notability, it's better to work on the article rather than delete it. That seems to be the case here. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify per Dlthewave. A three-sentence obituary is just not SIGCOV no matter who wrote it. If it's truly "indicative" of further sources existing, then six months of incubation should be sufficient to find it. NSPORT is very clear that a source of SIGCOV must be in the article, and since that is not forthcoming the article currently fails our guidelines and should not be kept in mainspace. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- And frankly, that goes against WP:NEXIST, which should take precedence. St Anselm ( talk) 04:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify I have to agree with Dlthewave and JoelleJay. In its current form, the article does not pass the guidelines and is very limited. However, other users have insisted that offline coverage and non-English language coverage is likely to exist, which I do not doubt. Draftify will give users time to find, improve and expand the article, and if necessary, we can review the article again at some point in the future. Unfortunately, if it isn’t in the article and is only likely to exist, we cannot keep the article going forward, but Draftify will give users time to save the article. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 08:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify Wisden entry indicates that notability is possible, however the sources don't currently establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:58, 31 July 2022 (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.
- 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 Draftify. General agreement that the article needs more work and sources with significant coverage in order to meet notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) –– FormalDude talk 07:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
Habib Ahmed
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Habib Ahmed ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG and lacks WP:SIGCOV. HeinzMaster ( talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and India. HeinzMaster ( talk) 03:58, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- He has a Wisden obituary, which is usually a sign that there is much more coverage available. It's not cited, and I won't be able to add it today, but it's a good indicator that if we were able to access sources - and we're almost totally reliant on printed sources for the era in which the bloke played - that we'd find scads. The commonality of the name and the era and where he played means it looks as if it's difficult to find early accessible internet sources however, which is a shame as with a career that long we'd find a bunch. I'm sure people will object to a redirect for various reasons, but I'm not sure what else we'll be able to do here - I guess a redirect to whichever team he played more most frequently in the Ranji would be best, unless any India-based editors can find more in paper archives or in local non-English language sources. I'll need access to CricketArchive to figure out which that is though. It would be a shame to lose an article about an obviously notable non-white, non-anglophone person however.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
05:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
- If we were looking at a redirect here, the List of Hyderabad cricketers would be the best choice - that's the team he played much more frequently for. The list needs updating at some point as well. I am minded towards keeping based on the Wisden obit though. They really don't give those away these days. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep. Played in 61 first-class matches, which makes the nomination quite frankly odd. Given the amount of matches he played in, there is undoubtedly coverage in print media from the era. He was afforded an obituary by Wisden, which shows his notability as a cricketer. Passes WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. StickyWicket ( talk) 12:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is this claimed likely existence of sources sufficient to meet
WP:NRV which requires
"verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability"
?
- Is this claimed likely existence of sources sufficient to meet
WP:NRV which requires
- Where is this obituary? If you look up his name along with wisden obituary, nothing shows up, neither does anything on Wisden page. Participation in some matches doesn't make you notable nor pass WP:GNG [1] HeinzMaster ( talk) 16:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's here. You'll notice the different way the name is transliterated. You might want to double check if there are any other versions of the name - this is very common for names from the subcontinent and can cause all sorts of problems when you're looking for references. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 21:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per StickyWicket. St Anselm ( talk) 04:14, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Keep I believe that there is the reasonable assumption that this player should pass WP:GNG in offline coverage and non-English language coverage with the career he had and with the obituary that we already have as well. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 17:34, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify due to lack of significant coverage. Passing NCRIC does not mean that notability is presumed; that SNG merely tells us that SIGCOV is likely to exist. The probable existence of sources is not enough, they actually need to be presented here and at least one needs to be added to the article per NSPORTS. The obituary is routine and not sufficient to meet SIGCOV. I propose draftification instead of outright deletion to give folks time to add these sources so that the article might be saved. – dlthewave ☎ 12:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever opinion you might be of about other things, a Wisden obituary is not in any way routine. They don't give them away in any sense and tonnes of well known players don't get one.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
13:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps "routine" wasn't the right word, but that very short obituary really isn't the type of in-depth writing that would contribute to SIGCOV. The fact that Wisden is selective about who gets an obituary doesn't mean that the person is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards. Again, we need SIGCOV sourcing to be present in the article in order to keep it per
WP:SPORTBASIC. –
dlthewave
☎
15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a jolly good indicator that much more writing about the person is likely to exist though - because of the selective nature. I mean, if we really have to have any form of sports notability guideline at all - and I'm not at all sure that any of them serve any practical purpose at all right now - then "got a Wisden obituary" is probably about the level to have them at.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- That's why I !voted to draftify instead of delete so that sources can eventually be added if they are found. We do in fact have a sports notability guideline and it doesn't mention Wisden obituaries or anything similar; you might consider opening an RfC if you'd like to add this, however it would be on a "sources are likely to exist" basis. The fact is that our guidelines don't presume notability in situations like this, and for sports figures community consensus is that sources actually have to be found and added to the article. This wouldn't even pass the AfC process as is. – dlthewave ☎ 22:40, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- It's a jolly good indicator that much more writing about the person is likely to exist though - because of the selective nature. I mean, if we really have to have any form of sports notability guideline at all - and I'm not at all sure that any of them serve any practical purpose at all right now - then "got a Wisden obituary" is probably about the level to have them at.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
17:53, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Perhaps "routine" wasn't the right word, but that very short obituary really isn't the type of in-depth writing that would contribute to SIGCOV. The fact that Wisden is selective about who gets an obituary doesn't mean that the person is necessarily notable by Wikipedia's standards. Again, we need SIGCOV sourcing to be present in the article in order to keep it per
WP:SPORTBASIC. –
dlthewave
☎
15:37, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Whatever opinion you might be of about other things, a Wisden obituary is not in any way routine. They don't give them away in any sense and tonnes of well known players don't get one.
Blue Square Thing (
talk)
13:04, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: more participation needed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Less Unless ( talk) 18:24, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Weak Keep per Blue Square Thing: if a high probability exists of additional sources that can solidify notability, it's better to work on the article rather than delete it. That seems to be the case here. Royal Autumn Crest ( talk) 19:35, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify per Dlthewave. A three-sentence obituary is just not SIGCOV no matter who wrote it. If it's truly "indicative" of further sources existing, then six months of incubation should be sufficient to find it. NSPORT is very clear that a source of SIGCOV must be in the article, and since that is not forthcoming the article currently fails our guidelines and should not be kept in mainspace. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- And frankly, that goes against WP:NEXIST, which should take precedence. St Anselm ( talk) 04:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify I have to agree with Dlthewave and JoelleJay. In its current form, the article does not pass the guidelines and is very limited. However, other users have insisted that offline coverage and non-English language coverage is likely to exist, which I do not doubt. Draftify will give users time to find, improve and expand the article, and if necessary, we can review the article again at some point in the future. Unfortunately, if it isn’t in the article and is only likely to exist, we cannot keep the article going forward, but Draftify will give users time to save the article. Fats40boy11 ( talk) 08:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
- Draftify Wisden entry indicates that notability is possible, however the sources don't currently establish that WP:NBIO is met. MrsSnoozyTurtle 03:58, 31 July 2022 (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.