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 delete. Consensus that the article meets NCRIC but fails to meet the necessary GNG (I should note that not all articles must meet GNG as well as the SNG, but sports notability specifically states it as a requirement). Nosebagbear ( talk) 12:16, 25 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Pritish Dass (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)

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

Fails WP:GNG, no coverage found. Störm (talk) 07:33, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Ten days ago, I reminded this editor about the closing comments of a past RfC "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations". This is one of approx. a dozen back-to-back nominations made today within a 30 minute window, suggesting no attempt at WP:BEFORE was used pre-nomination. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:54, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete totally fails GNG which is the minimum standard for all articles. Any article that fails to meet GNG should be deleted. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Subject nominally passes NCRIC, which by consensus only provides an extremely weak presumption of notability that is very unreliable for cricketers such as these ( recent NSPORT discussion here), but absolutely fails all meaningful guidelines including GNG and SPORTCRIT. No sources beyond wide ranging databases (including scorecards, not SIGCOV, from which prose has been built); no suitable list to merge into. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 12:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of East Pakistan first-class cricketers - the name seems rare enough to redirect here. Technical pass of NCRI but failure of GNG. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 12:42, 23 January 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.