Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Ameer

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 Karachi Kings cricketers. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Ameer[edit]

[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)

This guy fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCRICKET. A search seems to only one article with his name in it and it only covers him tangentially. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People and Cricket. Allan Nonymous (talk) 23:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Pakistan. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:02, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete samee converse 01:23, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I found several references using this search by focusing my search on Dawn.com, a leading English-language newspaper in Pakistan. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The sources here seem to all be tangential coverage of him playing for his team. The first hit isn't even of Abdul Ameer but of a M. Abdul Ameer who seems to be unrelated. Allan Nonymous (talk) 13:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too poor to stay on Wikipedia, not much to salvage around here. Acartonadooopo (talk) 20:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Acartonadooopo, it's the English Wikipedia's rule that Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. It doesn't matter whether the current version of the article is "too poor to stay on Wikipedia", because the question here at AFD is whether the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia:Separate, stand-alone article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers Not sure I'm seeing enough in a search to suggest a WP:GNG pass, however there could well be offline coverage. Suitable redirect per WP:ATD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rugbyfan22 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:23, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources likely to exist in Pakistan; taking 100 first-class wickets is no mean feat. AA (talk) 22:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Sources likely to exist" is a WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES argument. Allan Nonymous (talk) 15:15, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 01:32, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Herald (Benison) (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, zero SIGCOV to be found and no evidence that anything exists offline. JoelleJay (talk) 21:38, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. Nothing found or presented which meets SIGCOV. This is a BLP. Subject has received bare mentions from a single source. Everything else is unsupported assertion and a stats database. BusterD (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers BLP, fails GNG and NBIO. Nothing found in article or in BEFORE which meets WP:SIRS addressing the subject directly and indepth. Found listings, name mentions, nothing meeting SIGCOV. BLPs require strong sourcing. // Timothy :: talk 14:52, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of Karachi Kings cricketers: Subject does not have the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Redirect as a WP:ATD. Let'srun (talk) 18:00, 11 May 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.