Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Latif (2nd nomination) - Wikipedia


Article Images
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 keep‎. (non-admin closure) Shadow311 (talk) 14:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Latif (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable BLP -- Aunva6talk - contribs 14:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aunva6: care to explain why you think she doesn't meets WP:NCRICKET ? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 15:30, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
only one test, no significant coverage. fails WP:GNG, and WP:BLP1E -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:46, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Oaktree b: Are you voting the deletion of this BLP due to insufficient sources or because the subject does not meet the criteria outlined in WP:NCRICKET? --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 20:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are not insufficient sources and insufficient notability are effectually the same? -- Aunva6talk - contribs 21:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
She could meet notability, but we don't have extensive sourcing talking about the individual. No newspaper articles about her, no news items, no books that talk about her. Beyond confirming she exists, we don't have any description of the individual. Oaktree b (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The absence of references does not warrant deletion if the BLP meets the relevant criteria WP:NCRICKET, which it does in this case. --—Saqib (talk | contribs) 05:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: She categories in full member Nation. She played Test as well as ODIs. All of Pakistan women's Test cricketers have Wiki page. MPLS SUD JIT (talk) 18:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Has played 4 ODIs and 1 Test for a full-member nation, passes WP:NCRIC. You know, it is struggling to find coverage about Pakistani biographies in online English sources, specially in a period where Pakistani online cricket portals were not available. To qualify international stage, a player had to anyway be the top performer in domestic cricket. So here WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail here, as coverage probably existed at that time in offline sources. At present, even coverage about emerging domestic cricketers are also available because of the availability of cricket portals like cricketpakistan.com.pk. The amendment of the WP:NSPORTS was made to avoid people making micro-stubs of cricketers who marginally pass the criteria by playing one or two domestic matches. But this is not the case here and so at least I'll go for WP:IAR/WP:5P5 if written criteria are still not considered to be met. RoboCric Let's chat 04:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NCRICK only says that significant coverage is likely to exist. a few databases do not seem significant. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 13:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Pakistan women Test cricketers biography pages like Mariam Butt, Khursheed Jabeen, Uzma Gondal, Zehmarad Afzal, Deebah Sherazi, Nazia Nazir, Muqudos Khan, Shazia Hassan, Asma Farzand were based on two sources i.e. ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive. But the biographies are still exist. So it should be keep. And I agreed with RoboCric. Axjuo‬ (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Has played women's cricket at Test level, the highest level of women's international cricket. Nominating Test cricketers (be they men or women) is rather short-sighted, by reaching the pinnacle of their sport, not only are they inherently notable, but we should be seeking to expand, not eliminate such articles. AA (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is highly likely that an international cricketer from this period will likely have WP:GNG passing sourcing in offline or Pakistani language sourcing that isn't accessible. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've yet to see any, do you know of any sources? if you can find some, iI will gladly withdraw this AfD. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 19:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aunva6 I've come across the book Unveiling Jazbaa: A History Of Pakistan Women's Cricket by Aayush Puthran and am having it delivered to my local library. Hoping it will prove a good source and provide sufficient notability for a number of Pakistani women cricketers. Will update when I've given it a read. CarnivalSorts (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, please keep us updated. if it's got information on the other AFD's i'll withdraw those. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:00, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Aunva6, Rugbyfan22 has already mentioned that those aren't accessible. As I have said before, and I'm saying again WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail here. RoboCric Let's chat 19:42, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    common sense tells me that if I can't even find that sources exist, then as far as I know they don't. we're just assuming they do, without being able to actually find any. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 20:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As of mentioning those name, who played Test for Pakistan women's team, these BLP has no sources, but they still remain. So those information are not accessible. As RoboCric said twice. Let it be remain as it is.(Keep it). MPLS SUD JIT (talk) 08:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not taking a stance on this particular case, but common sense tells me that if I can't even find that sources exist, then ... they don't – that is not true, and I would say especially not so when one has not looked in the appropriate places (i.e. we do not have any access to the sources that would have covered this person, but know that they are "likely" to exist. E.g. as a made-up example, if we have an American athlete, and I don't know where to look for American sources, and so I look in Australian newspaper archives and find nothing, does that confirm that no sources exist on said American athlete? No!) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:V and WP:RSC indicate that if the source is largely inaccessible, and not shown to exist, they may as well not. WP:PUBLISH indicates that sources must be accessible to at least some editors. If you or any other editor can access these sources and cite them, then i will gladly withdraw. else it is just a claim of inherent notability -- Aunva6talk - contribs 18:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Erm, no. RSC is an essay. And the fact that a small group of, at best, five American and English(?) users have looked in non-Pakistani resources for sources about a Pakistani person does not, in any way, demonstrate that coverage is unlikely to exist. Stating that WP:PUBLISH requires sources be accessible is a misinterpretation; it says that it must be available to someone, not some editor. The vast majority of existing historical media in the world is not available to this select group of five Wikipedia editors. WP:V requires that the person is verifiable, i.e., that we know this person existed, which we do, as we have reliable sources such as CricketArchive confirming. I know very little about cricket, and as such am not !voting, but I note we must use common sense. In my opinion, if someone is highly accomplished and meets WP:NSPORT (which it appears Latif does?) and we have not looked at any sources from a country of 250 million, where this person achieved prominence, the rules do not need to be tightly enforced if in the best interest of the encyclopedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wouldn't a more obvious solution here be to restore the redirect from the first AfD? Which was removed very recently without the addition of any real sourcing. A note can easily be added to the page it redirects to to summarise what we currently know about her there. Can't it? Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    that's fine as far as I am concerned. I just don't think the subject is notable enough to warrant their own article. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There seems to be a consensus to Keep this article but it appears that discussion participants aren't aware that notability in sports requires GNG sources and isn't based on where or for whom the article subject played. The previous AFD was closed as a redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers, would that be acceptable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect and protect - I think this is headed in the same direction as the previous AfD no matter what. The previous redirect cited the issue of SNG v GNG and it's happening again here. To avoid it, a new article must go through the draft process hence the protection recommendation. 2001:8003:512D:C201:2535:51A8:8FA7:B27C (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC) — 2001:8003:512D:C201:2535:51A8:8FA7:B27C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
IP, how is your first-ever edit to comment at this discussion while examining wiki-terminology like "SNG v GNG"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you realize IP address assignments change, right? WP:HUMAN -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an essay; generally I find it suspicious when editors are making arguments like this with no other information or history to their record, as it oftentimes is by a sock. If this IP can prove they've edited constructively before then that's fine; but otherwise I don't see this as being worthy of full weight. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: Proceed with concerns as the IP in his second edit prodded an article. We can't deny the possibilities that any user can votestack by logging out or an IP turns out to be a sock, though I'm not accusing any specific user. I think the IP's vote shouldn't be given importance. RoboCric Let's chat 20:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoboCric: Agree. The IP is an obvious WP:DUCK. AA (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, the problem is we can't accuse any specific user because of such small number of edits. But I think the vote should be removed. RoboCric Let's chat 22:45, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
they're not really votes. the sysops can take the history into account when deciding consensus. Lets Assume Good Faith. -- Aunva6talk - contribs 16:08, 11 April 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.