Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam Anwar

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariam Anwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:ATHLETE which states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". Regarding international appearances the book Wounded Tiger: A History of Cricket in Pakistan states in a footnote "a curious feature of this team was the selection of numbers 10 and 11, Mariam Anwar and Shabana Latif. Neither of them bowled or kept wicket, and neither reached the crease in either Pakistan innings. Anwar scored three runs in seven one-day appearances, and Latif scored none at all in three innings in four one-day matches. Like so many players in social cricket, it looks as though they were making up the numbers" --Pontificalibus 13:05, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - while I'm suspicious as to why you picked this one in particular, I would suggest you looked through all the women's Test and ODI cricketer categories and decided which others do not come to your satisfaction - and suggest we fix them rather than send them immediately to AfD? Deleting international cricketers is another matter altogether from deleting supposedly "minor" first-class cricketers. The suggestion that full international cricket and "social cricket" are analogous is... disturbing. Bobo. 13:10, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NCRIC. "Making up the numbers" is a little harsh here. She was selected to be part of the Pakistan women's national squad for a series against the West Indies, playing in eight full international matches (seven ODIs and a Test). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:58, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment- check out the extremely non-neutral canvassing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Female_ODI_cricketers. Reyk _YO! 18:21, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't accuse me of canvassing. I was pointing out that our project was being attacked, and hoping to ensure that our articles were developed enough to stop this from happening in the future. Not canvassing. There's a difference. If you're not prepared to help expand the articles which require expanding, don't complain. It won't be long until someone decides to take those threadbare, unreferenced, Test cricketer articles to AfD. (Note that, like the Ranji Trophy players' articles which were also taken to AfD, nobody has bothered to expand on their prose content since they were created). At least we, who know about the subject, can do something about it. Bobo. 13:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Moreover, I was pointing out the contrary beliefs of the user in question who took this to AfD - and how they do not relate to the articles which were being discussed in said AfD. (Note that, in this deletion discussion, he says he is taking them to AfD because of their lack of content, not for the purpose of passing - or otherwise - any form of guideline). Bobo. 13:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep has played at the highest international level of women's cricket, easily meets WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. All international cricketers (men and women) who play at Test/ODI/T20I level are automatically notable. StickyWicket (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's hardly surprising there is some animosity from CRIC. Users who contribute nothing to project come along and start trying to get articles deleted, straight after CRIC revamped its notability guidelines and deleted biographies of cricketers with no biographical details - to date about 500 articles have been removed as a result. Wanting international cricketers deleted could come across as an attack on the project. StickyWicket (talk) 22:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think enough "attacks on the project" - by those who claim to care about these things - have occurred already? It's almost as if we've lost sight of what we're trying to achieve... Bobo. 13:29, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. As per Lugnuts. Khadar Khani (talk) 07:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Note satisfying WP:NCRIC/WP:CRIN alone is not sufficient grounds to have a separate article. At the top of WP:NCRIC it states "subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." In this case the guidance clearly fails because the subject does not meet WP:GNG.----Pontificalibus 07:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I want to !vote keep, but just as "I don't like it" isn't a valid rationale, nor is "I do like it". As one of the lead contributors to the women's cricket task force, I want this article to survive, but I can't argue with the nominator's rationale. I hope to spend some time before this nomination closes looking for sources to possibly show that the subject does meet the GNG, but failing that, I have to agree that it currently appears the subject fails to meet our notability criteria. Harrias ^talk 09:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as having played for her country, until we have a major policy change to remove all sportspeople about whom little is known except that they played one match at senior/international level once or appeared once in the Olympics. And please, Pontificalibus, add that quote and book source, as an interesting comment on this player. Thanks. PamD 09:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD:You mention a policy change but that is actually our current policy per WP:ATHLETE - athletes failing WP:GNG shouldn't have articles, regardless of what level of competition they have appeared in. If this is wrong and doesn't reflect consensus or what the policy is supposed to be, then WP:ATHLETE needs to be reworded to remove the requirement to satisfy WP:GNG. On the other if that is our policy, and people are creating articles for athletes where there aren't sufficient sources to satisfy GNG, then WP:ATHLETE should be reworded to make the stated requirements more visible. ----Pontificalibus 09:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment again, I'm essentially on the same lines as Harrias: here. The fact that she's non-Anglophone and female suggests to me that we might keep - at least for a period of time to allow sources to be sourced - but there's a lack of reliable sources, so from that perspective I'm inclined to agree that it's a marginal case. I'd have no objection to appealing to someone with access to non-English sources to check for more details - but the fact that there's no article about her on any non-English wiki isn't promising (or perhaps just a representation of the lack of status women's cricket has with many people) Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources are shown that would suggest passing GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete regretfully, despite more research, I've failed to find additional sources to demonstrate that the subject meets WP:GNG. I suspect that it is unlikely that much will turn up, primarily because of the attitudes towards women playing sports in Pakistan. Harrias ^talk 08:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. WP:Notability (sports) seems somewhat contradictory about requiring subjects to also meet WP:GNG. At the top of the page it says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below. If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways." (My emphases.) According to my reading of this, she is presumed notable, having played "at the highest international or domestic level", and therefore "it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". Those sources may not be online, but we do have sources online that verify her name and the games she has played in, which is sufficient for an article. The bit that requires WP:GNG is in Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Applicable_policies_and_guidelines and says "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." That seems to be intended as a blanket statement about standalone articles on any topic, and is highly questionable - WP:NACADEMIC does not require subjects to also meet WP:GNG. And, WP:GNG states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". So in fact, it could be argued that this article is in line with the WP:GNG policy - it meets a subject-specific guideline. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. The article is, as Harrias says, not going to meet GNG anytime soon due to a number of factors - including the position of women's cricket in Pakistan. The Keep rationale exposed by a number of editors has been the subject of RfC discussions in the past where the precedence of the GNG has been the consensus view - as does the FAQ at NSPORTS. This is almost certainly going to be closed as non-consensus anyway, but the most obvious solution is to redirect - we have a barely verifiable BLP which we're unlikely to be able to find additional sources for beyond database entries. If those sources are found we revert the redirect and add them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:21, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Someone brought up the likelihood that any sources would be in non-English languages. A search on my part for Urdu sources, however, did not yield any relevant results. Moaz786 (talk to me or see what I've been doing) 16:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's a very short article with two solid references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 00:02, 4 September 2019 (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.