Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asim Munir (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 no consensus‎. leaning Keep but those advocating Delete have a valid argument. Rarely is it appropriate to close an AFD based on WP:IAR so I'm not putting that forward. Spending time locating strong sources would be beneficial in case this article gets renominated. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Munir (cricketer)

[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)

~~Based on this discussion, this guy is likely non-notable. Fails WP:GNG. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)~~ Blocked sock[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 22:54, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Not being the primary topic is irrelevant to notability. This is a ludicrous nomination. Batagur baska (talk) 23:46, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is ludicrous about it? This nomination is based on WP:BEFORE that there is nothing about him in Pakistani media. The primary topic discussion is just for the background. You can obviously skip it if you don't like to read it. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 23:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The man played in 64 top-class matches and there is enough about him in British media for an article of reasonable size. I suggest that there must be much more in Pakistani media but your attempt at BEFORE has obviously failed miserably. Background is irrelevant to this forum. If you think a subject isn't notable, provide a rational argument to support your view. To suggest deletion of a cricketer with 64 top-class appearances is not only ludicrous but an egregious misuse of the forum. Batagur baska (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of claims, like "there is enough about him in British media" - where is the coverage? There must be sources is an invalid argument, considering you failed to present a single in-depth article about him, and this is required per WP:SPORTCRIT. He just did his job, played "64 matches", and no one cares about him, because he didn't achieve anything. We, in Pakistan, hardly follow domestic cricket (empty stadiums and only recently PCB started to telecast cricket matches), so the media here hardly covers domestic cricketers like in Australia, England, New Zealand. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need sources that talk about him. Playing cricket doesn't make you notable here, but it implies you could be eligible for an article if we have sources about the person. Oaktree b (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Batagur baska is correct, the primary topic discussion has no relevance here. AA (talk) 00:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. AA (talk) 00:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Batagur baska (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Presently, it is just a synthesized article based on database entries. The biography fails WP:NCRIC because he never played at international level, and fails WP:GNG because there is no coverage. WP:ILIKEIT/WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:08, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting CRIN, it doesn't say that only cricketers who play at international level are deemed notable. AA (talk) 23:03, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not seeing any views in the request move that states the subject is non-notable, and while there is only a few bits online, where searching is difficult because of the general, there is likely to be be offline or non-English language coverage of a subject with a career such as his. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem you're referencing relates to biographies from the pre-internet era. The career of this cricketer from 1999 to 2003/04 falls within a time when most Pakistani publications were already available online. Invalid argument per WP:USEFUL. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I just wanted to share what I found about him before nom: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7] – all these articles merely mention "Asim Munir Butt" and these articles were published in 2001 and onwards. HistoriesUnveiler (talk) 22:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all mentions of the person in a list of many players, not significant coverage of this individual. None are helpful. Oaktree b (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Seems to be a military person with this name, nothing about a cricket player. Sourcing used now is simple match reports, which don't help notability. Oaktree b (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not enough sources and coverage to meet WP:GNG. A weak case can be made about WP:SPORTCRIT. Clearly, not enough on him to warrant a Wiki article.Wiki.0hlic ^(talk) 01:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per AssociateAffiliate. Also, is this nomination for deletion still valid if the user requesting it is blocked? —Jonny Nixon (talk) 14:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the nominator being a blocked sock, there are other "delete" votes by users in good standing. This AFD is valid with the nominator's statement being stricken. Frank Anchor 18:14, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of meeting GNG or even SPORTCRIT. Sportsperson articles are required to cite a SIGCOV IRS source, regardless of how allegedly difficult it might be to find online sources.

JoelleJay (talk) 22:44, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question: where one would find late 1990s/early 2000s Pakistan newspaper archives? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:04, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 18:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep played at senior level for his country seems notable enough for me. Themanwithnowifi (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep: unless someone can show a good Pakistani newspaper archive from the time, and prove that Munir has no coverage in it, then it does seem the best option to be on the side of WP:IAR / WP:COMMONSENSE for someone who seems (correct me if I'm off on this) to have played 64 top-tier matches in the fifth-most populous country in the world in its most popular sport. It is highly unlikely a person of such accomplishments would not have gained any coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Played 64 matches at the highest level and keep per the rationale of AA. Robo^Cric Let's chat 01:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Playing List A or FC matches is not a notability criterion (I don't think List A was even enough for the old NCRIC?) and, per our current NCRIC guidelines, even a player at the highest domestic level (FC) may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof. We do not have that "further proof", so absent a reason why we should ignore both that cricket-specific guidance as well as the general SPORTCRIT requirement for IRS SIGCOV, the correct outcome is to delete. JoelleJay (talk) 09:12, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per the previous users, WP:IAR, WP:COMMONSENSE. At the time of his career, digital portals were not available for Pakistani cricketers. Robo^Cric Let's chat 10:38, 9 March 2024 (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.