Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gull Feroza

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 redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers. Tone 09:57, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Gull Feroza

[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)

Fails NSPORT/GNG due to lack of significant coverage. WP:SPORTBASIC requires at least one SIGCOV source to be present in the article. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. –dlthewave ☎ 16:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note that her name also appears to be transliterated as Gul Feroza and there may be other alternatives as well. There are at least two in-depth TV style interviews with her on YouTube from different media sources (one 15 mins long). Neither are in English. Has anyone checked non-English sources at all? Given the number of mentions in English I think I'd want to do that before I could be confident that there aren't sources. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:44, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: I've had a look to see if there are any Urdu sources, there only seems to be one saying she got a central contract, and this which I assume is not enough. Suprising seeing as there were two interviews. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers While there seems to be a bit of confusion over the correct spelling of her name, I'm not sure there's going to be enough coverage currently for her. However, again, there is a suitable redirect per WP:ATD, and again could have been BOLDly redirected. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BST (...least two in-depth TV style interviews...). Also meets the updated WP:NSPORT notability guideline: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below", so going down to the cricket notability states "Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation" and she has, having played for Pakistan. She's also in the squad for the Commonwealth Games that is happening right now too, suggesting coverage for her exists, albeit not in English. At worst, redirect per RugbyFan Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:36, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Pakistan women Twenty20 International cricketers - The sources just aren't there. Also to counterpoint what Lugnuts said above, he's leaving out a very important aspect of the cricket specific listing at WP:NSPORT. It does not say "cricket notability" or that notability is met if they play at an international level. What is says is: "Significant coverage is likely to exist for a cricket figure if they...Have played at the international level for a Test-playing nation." Additionally it says "cricketers who have played...in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof." So with higher international players we can assume there's coverage, with lower international players we can't assume there's coverage. It says nothing about making one notable, it literally only is a guidance on the likelihood of coverage and is not a judgement on notability in any way. Whether this is a higher or lower level of international play I honestly do not know (I'm assuming it's higher) but the end result is the same, reliable sources still need to exist. Whether we should assume coverage or not, we still have to actually provide the coverage to meet WP:GNG, and this article's subject does not. - Aoidh (talk) 16:45, 5 August 2022 (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.