Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shabana Latif

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 redirect to List of Pakistan women ODI cricketers. It would be defensible to close this as No Consensus. There is fundamental disagreement here about the relative importance of the WP:SNGs vs WP:GNG, and I don't see how any amount of relists will resolve that. The issue of WP:CANVASSING is of some concern as well. Ultimately, I found Blue Square Thing's arguments why a redirect makes sense, to be convincing. As noted, should better sourcing emerge in the future, the redirect can be undone by any editor. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shabana Latif[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(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 - Copying my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam Anwar - 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 five full international matches (four 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! 20:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would refer you to my comments here. At least we, as dedicated members of the project, can do something about this situation. Bobo . 13:46, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agonised over this one because this is the kind of athlete for whom the presumption of notability in WP:ATH is helpful. Surely an international cricketer would be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources? But I guess not. As this book linked in the nomination statement makes clear, Shabana was selected at Number 11 but didn't bowl. Nor did she score a single run in four career matches. In the author's words: "Like so many players in social cricket, it looks as though they were making up the numbers." Other than that, the sources tell us little about her. We know that she is from Peshawar or somewhere near there and had to convince her parents to let her play.[1] But for whom did she play locally? Did she bat, bowl or both? What is she doing now? Is she still alive? These are the kinds of questions that a biography would answer. They are the kind of questions that significant coverage in reliable sources would answer. For completeness, I tried a hack search in Urdu, hoping that it would bear out the presumption of notability in WP:ATH, but I couldn't find anything. Others may have more luck, in which case ping me. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No sorry, this has got ridiculous now. Okay, delete "A. Smith" with one first-class appearance in 1798. No problem with that. But to delete international cricketers who have played Test/ODI/T20I level. Nah, that's just stupid and disruptive. Easily passes WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated this biography because it's sourced to a single statistical table. What could be considered disruptive is you trawling through my created articles desperately looking for one to take to AfD in retaliation for this. But that's actually fine by me - let's judge each article against our policies and not cast aspersions on the motivations of other editors. ----Pontificalibus 07:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are upset with the content of the article, AfD is not the way to go about it. Bobo . 14:07, 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 06:57, 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 09:15, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enough people are wanting to delete those as it is - don't encourage them..! Bobo . 13:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - 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. In addition to the book source found by the nominator, there's a mention of a Shabana Latif in this ESPN article, although I'm not entirely convinced it's the same person. There's also a lot of reference to a make-up artist online, but, again, I have no idea if it's the same person. 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) 10:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not enough sourcing to pass GNG. the notability guidelines for cicket are clearly flawed and need to be rewritten.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question @Pontificalibus: as nom, would you have any objection to this (and Mariam Anwar) being draftified to allow longer to look for sources outside of mainspace? Harrias ^talk 07:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but consensus in the debate above should be properly summarised and closed by an admin. If it's deleted, it can be draftified and if sufficient sources are later found to overcome the delete rationale, then it can be restored.----Pontificalibus 08:02, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, I'm not trying to circumvent the AfD process. In all honesty, I think even with another six months in draft space, it's unlikely that much will turn up. More because of the attitudes towards women playing sports in Pakistan than much else. I've had a cursory look through some of my stuff at home, and haven't found anything else. Harrias ^talk 08:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I note that a teammate who died garnered sufficient coverage ([2], [3]), so I wouldn't write off local attitudes. However while Khan "was instrumental in getting Pakistan a women's cricket team", Latif and Anwar as noted above simply may not be regarded as having made a significant contribution to cricket by anyone apart from Wikipedia editors looking only at stats.----Pontificalibus 08:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete regretfully, per my comment above. There simply isn't enough coverage to meet WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 08:18, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:NCRIC. As I said on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mariam Anwar, 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) 12:17, 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) 12:22, 26 August 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.