Deletion of Abdul Baseer (cricketer)

Comment: The point of  etc. is, as
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: He played first-class cricket and therefore meets the requirements of . If he was a  player, he wouldn't have been good enough to play for Hyderabad. Whatever may have been discussed at the "village pump", there has been no change to the wording of  which emphasises in bold that "'''The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below'''". The SSC is summarised by  on same page in respect of cricket and the full notability criteria for cricket is at . As for your desire to delete articles, I would point out that our core policies are , OR, POV and . This article passes them all and we are building an encyclopaedia, not pandering to a small group of  merchants. In addition, there is OTPAPER so you are not saving needed space. The only problem with this article was that it was a  that needed a bit of work doing to improve its structure and presentation
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN||WP:MILL||WP:NSPORTS||WP:NCRIC||WP:CRIN||WP:N||WP:NOR||WP:NPOV||WP:V||WP:IDONTLIKEIT||WP:NOTPAPER||WP:STUB)

Comment: As one of the authors of the Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#The_criteria_of_WP:NSPORT_here_are_too_inclusive|RfC that is partially referenced in the nomination, I might make a couple of points: 1) The close also states: "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations."  The nomination here does little more than reference that RfC and then throw this article into discussion.  If the nominator wanted to make a single-article test case, then they probably should have made that clear.  2) The discussion there reached no conclusions about the exclusivity of any particluar guidelines, and certainly not on .  3) The discussion there reached a clear conclusion that WP:NSPORTS and  do not override WP:GNG.  While discussions within projects have historically tried to advocate that their subject-specific guidelines (SSG's) do override the GNG, this third point is not new to that discussion and in fact re-iterates long-standing project-wide consensus.  Discussions of this sort on the |Village Pump are often preferred since they have such project-wide visibility. There is currently more discussion about this guideline relationship at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Proposal re GNG/SSC relationship and much of the discussion above is about points and arguments probably better-placed there.  Thank you
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:VP)

Comment: If you want to change  or , then start an RFC there. Until then, we use those guidelines. This article passes those guidelines, and this is not a suitable place to try and fight the system
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:NSPORT)

Comment: Passes . We've been through this dozens of times before
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: Passes . The RfC said not to flood AfD with indiscriminate nominations based solely on that. Nominator appears to have done that with this and others. Knock if off, close this, and stop wasting everybody's time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)