Deletion of Rashid Saleem

Comment: the RfC that is so often mentioned made a conclusion re: SNGs that the recent RfC on PROF has concluded is not true and that directly contradicts the text of , the guideline which the GNG is a part of and subordinate to. The text of N has not changed because there was no RfC on changing it, and an RfC that was only advertised as being about one SNG cannot be a backdoor way to change the most prominent ''guideline'' on en.wiki. The SNGs are in fact ''equal'' to the GNG as is made abundently clear by the overaching notability policy. NSPORTs does subordinate itself to the GNG, but it is important to remember that the GNG is only one part of . POSSIBLE is also part of it, and passing NSPORTs gives that argument significantly more weight.{{pb}}It is up to the participants in a discussion to decide how they deal with this tension inside the guidelines. I have no opinion on this specific case, but I did want to point out that there is absolutely no basis in the actual notability guideline () to accept the call to ignore those arguing from an SNG. If the participants of this AfD decide that failure to comply with the GNG is a reason to delete the article, that is acceptable under both NSPORTS and N, but deciding to retain per NSPORTS and NPOSSIBLE is also entirely based in policy, and I urge the closer to discount arguments that claim otherwise
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:N||WP:NPOSSIBLE)

Comment: to Gujranwala cricket team as valid search term – Per Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_135#The_criteria_of_SPORT_here_are_too_inclusive|this discussion, subject-specific |notability guidelines do not supersede the |general notability guideline, except in clear cases where |GNG does not apply to. ''As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios'', I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: '''NSPORTS does not supersede GNG'''. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. Also, I will note that less coverage has to be applied for this article to be considered notable. Also fails 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:GNG||WP:GNG||WP:BIO1E)

Comment: it per . See the discussion about  Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Are_you_happy_with_.3F|here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: It has '''consistently''' been held that a single appearance at the highest level of a sport is sufficient for . The correct interpretation of "presumed" in WP is that it is considered to be the case, unless there is evidence to the contrary, for '''presumed notability''' to mean the subject is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not. In this case, no one has presented any evidence suggesting that the subject is not notable, given that he has played cricket at the highest level and meets  (see CRIC in SPORTS). Furthermore, there have been several precedents in which subjects like this one have been '''kept''' or where '''no consensus''' has been ruled (see, for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:CRIN||WP:NCRIC||WP:NSPORTS)