Asim Munir (cricketer): Let'srun ( talk ) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople , Sports , Cricket ,  and Pakistan .  Let'srun ( talk ) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep .  Utterly pointless nomination, obviously missed the outcome of the first AfD.  AA ( talk ) 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago.   Possibly a little soon for a renomination , but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close.  Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Without a proper rationale, it's hard to consider your vote when the time comes to close this discussion.  Hey man im josh ( talk ) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] I think by referring to the prior AFD, AA is implying that their rationale there still applies: 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.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full).  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 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD.  It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had.  Rugbyfan22 ( talk ) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep read the last AFD , fully concur with the keep voters there.  Most likely passes WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian ( talk ) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV .  No proof offered - per WP:NCRIC cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or 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.  .  Closing admin should ignore keep votes that couldn't find any significant coverage.  103.125.122.179 ( talk ) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — 103.125.122.179 ( talk ) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  [ reply ] And likewise, unless a convincing explanation can be offered, this comment by an IP that has never edited before and is likely a WP:SOCK should be discounted; not to mention that NCRIC is a guideline and common sense is allowed to be used .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IP links to Bangladesh, but definitely a WP:SOCK of someone.  Checkuser?  AA ( talk ) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  08:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Comment about the relisting while taking no sides: On the one hand, the sock suggestion is serious.  On the other hand, all information as of this relisting comes only from a single source: CricketArchive.  Even if the self-proclaimed "most comprehensive, searchable and trusted cricket database in the world" turns out to be valid and reliable, a notable individual should pop up in other sources as well.  If other valid sources worth adding exist, great.  If not, that may pose a problem.  It would be nice for this not to end in another "no consensus" again so soon after the last one.  I'm saying this here because it seems a bit long for a formal relisting comment.  Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no!  08:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep , per the last AFD (should not have been renominated so soon and I question how the nom came across it) and my rationale there.  We need to use common sense .  Unless someone can prove that some source from the era in Pakistan was searched in, then one cannot claim that this fails GNG – from my comment at the last AFD: it does seem the best option to be on the side of [common sense] for someone who seems ... 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.  I also question how four valid "keeps" plus one "delete from a sock" – which should be given no weight – equals "relist"...  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH , and as of today the IP has not been blocked.  Consensus changes and one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy.  [User:Let'srun|Let'srun]] ( talk ) 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Just because the IP has not been blocked does not mean the almost certain sock should be given full weight.  Common sense is absolutely a policy.  Also, if you think my concerns about the nom are unfounded, would you tell me exactly how you came across this article, then?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] WP:AOBF .  I also wasn't referring to that vote.  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] What were you referring to, then?  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] The first vote.  Let'srun ( talk ) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Hmm...  I guess I missed the "one of" part from "one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy" – though I think the ! vote implied that the rationale of keeping per common sense at the last AFD still applied, as I said above.  Still think AA's ! vote should be given weight.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : CricketArchive is a directory, not a secondary source.  WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a flimsy argument at the best of times, but for a BLP, it's a non-argument.  Without independent secondary sources providing SIGCOV for this BLP, we don't really have any options.  Owen× ☎ 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] We are allowed to use common sense.  It is invalid to argue the article fails notability when no one has searched in Pakistani sources whatsoever!  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Yeah, that's exactly the MUSTBESOURCES I was talking about.  Owen× ☎ 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It simply makes no sense to delete articles when no one has searched for coverage .  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Well then, perhaps you should rewrite the WP:N and WP:BLP policies to a version that makes more sense to you, BeanieFan11 .  As they are written now, unless and until we find those sources, we can't have an article about anything, let alone a living person.  Owen× ☎ 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] That's why IAR / common sense exists.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Of course.  Who needs all those pesky policies and gnarly guidelines when we have our WP:IAR trump card in our back pocket, right?  Owen× ☎ 16:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Notability is a guideline; Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply .  This is one of the rare exceptions.  BeanieFan11 ( talk ) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] IAR is not a trump card , but an understanding that Wikipedia’s policies are not perfect and there are cases in which the rules need not rigidly apply.   OwenX, as an admin and consistent contributor to AFD/DRV discussions, should know this, even if he doesn’t agree with this particular application of IAR.  Frank Anchor 00:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Relisting comment: Full two relists seems appropriate given the relatively recent, prior no consensus outcome.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete .  CricketArchive is a stats directory; every single one of the sources cited for this BLP is a prose-less table of primary data and therefore is unacceptable per N, OR, and BLP ( Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. ... Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research , and the other sourcing policies. ) .  Per NSPORT, the burden is on those wanting to keep to establish there is high likelihood of the subject meeting GNG; to do that, NSPORT requires a source of IRS SIGCOV be cited in the article .  No one has demonstrated such a source exists in the 4+ weeks + 60 days this subject has been in focus.  IAR is meant to be employed in exceptional circumstances, not for literally every athlete meeting some participation criterion who "might" have offline sources , which is how it is regularly being used by certain keep ! voters.  If playing some number of first-class domestic matches -- which are not the top tier of cricket -- was a reasonable threshold for presuming GNG we would have guidelines stating as much rather than a guideline explicitly stating that sufficient coverage is not expected for that level of play : Additionally, cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket,[a] may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.  At some point the repeated invocation of deprecated notability guidelines disguised as IAR becomes disruptive.  ! Votes that are devoid of any P&G basis -- and especially ones that actively defy P&Gs -- should not just be automatically given weight, much less elevated to the same weight as P&G-based ! votes, any time the ! voter mentions the magic phrase "IAR".  That completely defeats the purpose of consensus policy stating Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 20:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] It’s funny that JoelleJay suggests that Responses indicating individual explanations of positions using Wikipedia policies and guidelines are given the highest weight , but seems to forget that WP:IAR in fact IS A POLICY, and the fundamental policy behind one of Wikipedia’s five pillars .  The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions (emphasis mine).   Having an article on a person who played 64 matches at the highest domestic level can easily be considered one of these exceptions.  Frank Anchor 22:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] So your claim is that IAR, which is supposed to be just as exceptional at AfD as it is everywhere else, must be applied to everyone playing some arbitrary number of matches at the highest domestic level (which would be 23, not 64) in Pakistan, despite  1) participation-based criteria explicitly being deprecated by global consensus;  2) the requirement for a SIGCOV source cited in all sportsperson bios, regardless of subject location or time period , receiving overwhelming global support;  3) the guidelines written by the cricket project itself explicitly stating playing at this level requires proof of coverage to even warrant the same presumption of GNG coverage existing afforded to Test cricketers;  4) NO ONE finding a single hint of a source in either the first AfD or this one;  5) NO ONE demonstrating why we can presume 23 first-class matches in Pakistan corresponds to SIGCOV; and  6) zero evidence being presented to explain why this page in particular , consisting exclusively of some unremarkable blandly-prosified stats that AA chose to emphasize and synthesize based on his interpretation of multiple sources of primary data, is so essential to Wikipedia that our POLICY of Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.  and our POLICY that BLPs only rely on primary sources when they have already been discussed by secondary sources ( Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies. ) and our POLICY that The idea expressed in Eventualism —that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does not apply to biographies can be overridden because some editors have decided that per IAR PoLiCY we can completely ignore Wikipedia policy requires that articles and information comply with core content policies ( verifiability , no original research or synthesis , neutral point of view , copyright , and biographies of living persons ) as applicable.  These policies are not negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus.  A closing admin must determine whether an article violates these content policies.  Please tell me where Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area.  says consensus in a particular case can suspend multiple guidelines, let alone multiple policies , and be so utterly non-specific to the attributes of the actual subject that this precise reasoning for a "one-time suspension" could be (and will be) deployed for literally dozens of other subjects.  JoelleJay ( talk ) 18:14, 28 May 2024 (UTC) [ reply ] First, I never stated or implied Per "ignore all rules", a local consensus can suspend a guideline in a particular case where suspension is in the encyclopedia's best interests, but this should be no less exceptional in deletion than in any other area.  Nor has any other keep ! voter implied this.   Also, IAR is not a guideline or editors' consensus but rather a policy.  So your WP:WALLOFTEXT leading to the argument that content policies can't be superseded by local consensus or guidelines, while correct, is irrelevant in this application.  Frank Anchor 19:37, 28 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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus