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. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 02:23, 16 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Aftab Ahmed (cricketer, born 1931) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Non-notable cricketer, nothing in searches, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete Has played 6 FC games, but I couldn't find any significant coverage. Search was happened by common name and the timing of his career though, so sources may well exists either offline or in Pakistani sources. Has played for 2 teams so no suitable WP:ATD per WP:XY. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:44, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete As per abovem fails WP:NCRIC and WP:GNG. Sliekid ( talk) 16:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment He doesn't fail WP:NCRIC which requires only one first class match; he has six of them. DevaCat1 ( talk) 20:36, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep He played in six first class matches, and in those matches took 20 wickets, including the (rare) feat of a ten wicket match. It's vanishingly unlikely that there was not meaningful coverage of a ten wicket match in a first class game, but that coverage is likely to be in hardcopy sources in Pakistan. Any cricketer with a ten wicket match is notable. For point of comparison, there were only 19 occasions on which that was accomplished in English first class cricket in 1991 (a randomly chosen year)- I know this because it's sufficiently significant that Wisden has a specific section on it (Wisden 1992, p. 290). It would likely be one of the best half a dozen bowling performances in Pakistani cricket in 1954/5. This isn't someone who has just played a single List A match for a minor county- he has accomplished a truly major accomplishment in the career of any professional bowler, which will have led to significant coverage. This one is really about none of those sources being online, rather than not existing; he would be able to pass WP:GNG given proper research. DevaCat1 ( talk) 20:33, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Per DevaCat1, sources relating to his ten wickets in a match will exist, in addition to those about the rest of his playing career, just a case of finding them. One of those statistical quirks where I'm sure the 1956 Wisden will have coverage. StickyWicket ( talk) 21:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep As per all, passes WP:BASIC. DmitriRomanovJr ( talk) 12:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete no one has identified actual sources that add up to passing GNG, so we should delete the article. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep A ten wicket haul is a rare trophy, indeed. First class matches are admitted, due the time snd the tempo of Cricket in those days. Keep. -- Whiteguru ( talk) 10:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete WP:NSPORT requires WP:GNG to be met - it's in the second sentence past the jump - and we have no sources to support it, the three in the article all fail WP:SPORTCRIT. SportingFlyer T· C 23:35, 6 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete Fails GNG.-- MadD ^{( talk)} 11:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep per DevaCat1. Riteboke ( talk) 16:21, 13 April 2021 (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.