Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sajjad Ibraheem

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 draftify‎. ✗plicit 23:33, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sajjad Ibraheem

[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)

No evidence of WP:SIGCOV for this young cricketer. More coverage would be needed to meet WP:SPORTBASIC. PROD was contested by linking a deprecated essay. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Pakistan. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The subject meets the inclusion criteria as defined in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Notability#Individuals, which states that any cricketer who has played in a single officially recognized first-class, List A, or T20 match is presumed notable. Sajjad Ibraheem made his first-class debut for Peshawar in the 2024–25 Quaid-e-Azam Trophy on 5 November 2024, in a match against Rawalpindi. This competition is recognized as first-class by the Pakistan Cricket Board (PCB), which is the governing body of cricket in Pakistan. Therefore, the article satisfies the notability requirement under subject-specific guidelines, regardless of broader media coverage. ESPNcricinfo profile. Behappyyar (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
According to the guideline you linked, that page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. Sports figures need at the very least one independent source with significant coverage (WP:SIGCOV). JTtheOG (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. While Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Notability is marked as inactive, the notability principle that first-class cricketers are presumed notable is still active policy via WP:NCRICKET, and has been consistently upheld at AfD. As per WP:NCRICKET: "Playing in a first-class match is usually sufficient for notability." This is supported by numerous prior AfD closures. This satisfies WP:NCRICKET and aligns with community consensus for cricketer notability. WP:GNG is not required when reliable subject-specific notability exists and has been broadly applied in practice. Behappyyar (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Are these AfDs from the previous three years? Participation-based guidelines have been deprecated since 2022. JTtheOG (talk) 21:27, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to clarify: WP:NCRICKET notes that significant coverage should not be assumed for all domestic players, but it also states that playing in an officially recognized first-class match is usually sufficient for notability. This reflects established AfD precedent. Since Sajjad Ibraheem debuted in a PCB-sanctioned first-class match, the subject meets this standard, regardless of media coverage.

This will rest on whether sufficient sources can be found to meet the WP:GNG – something along the lines of WP:BASIC level. I don't read Urdu so can't determine if the source in that language would significantly help reach that sort of bar. Simply meeting NCRIC has not been considered sufficient for an article to be kept for years. In this case there appears to not be a suitable list to redirect the article to, so I would suggest sending the article to draft initially unless suitable sourcing can be found Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:39, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. According to global consensus, all sportsperson articles are required to cite a source of IRS SIGCOV in addition to the subject meeting GNG. Meeting NCRICKET only affords a presumption of further SIGCOV if this SPORTCRIT criterion is satisfied. JoelleJay (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:SIGCOV, WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:NCRIC by extension. Vestrian24Bio 09:49, 26 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No SIGCOV, participation-based notability criteria were deprecated by WP:NSPORTS2022, and I'd say that the idea that playing for Pesahawar necessarily indicates notability has been quite definitely disproved by the large number of LUGSTUBs deleted/redirected already. FOARP (talk) 10:55, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@JoelleJay @Vestrian24Bio @FOARP

Draftify: I respect all of your opinions. But I created the article in good faith after reading Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Notability#Individuals, which states that a cricketer who has played a single officially recognized first-class match is usually considered notable. Unfortunately, I did not notice any "inactive" status tag on the guideline at the time of writing, and believed it to be valid and in line with precedent.

Sajjad Ibraheem made his debut in the Quaid-e-Azam Trophy, which is the highest level of first-class cricket in Pakistan. Given that, I believe there is a strong chance that more reliable coverage (especially from English and Urdu sources) will emerge in the coming months as his career progresses.

Therefore, I respectfully request that the article be moved to Draft space rather than deleted, so that I can improve it over time with better sourcing as it becomes available.

Behappyyar (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm okay with draftify. Vestrian24Bio 01:56, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed either. JTtheOG (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate your consideration. I’m committed to improving the article in Draft space with better sourcing over time. Could someone please advise on the next step or help with moving the article to Draft space? I want to make sure it’s done properly. Behappyyar (talk) 06:44, 29 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks dear. Behappyyar (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2025 (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.