Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humayan Ahmed

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. Not much support for draftification, but I would provide a userspace copy to someone who commits to working on it. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Humayan Ahmed

[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)

This is my 4th AFD of this user's articles. The subject of this article hasn't played for a big team and does not have any in-depth coverage at all. All the coverage (in English at least) that exists on the internet is statistical or passing mentions. Fails to meet GNG or every other criteria. It's baffling how these pages have been live for years. X (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, and Bangladesh. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in absence of suitable redirect Fails WP:GNG, and given there isn't a suitable list to redirect to here per WP:ATD, delete. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that this is the fourth AFD backs up the idea that this page has established validity again and again. I don't think articles should be deleted without widespread consensus. PickleG13 (talk)
@PickleG13, this is not the 4th AFD of this page. I said this is was my 4th article nomination for deletion of the user who created that page. X (talk) 22:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @PickleG13: (edit conflict) Can you elaborate? I don't understand your argument that "this page has established validity again and again". The four deletion discussions involve four different cricketers. I don't follow sports bios very closely, but my sense is that Lugnuts created a lot of bios that may have met the notability criteria at the time (or at least common practice), but since then notability criteria have become stricter. Now many that are little more than stats stubs are being nominated for deletion and generally are being deleted. If that impression is correct, then it suggests there is widespread consensus to delete articles like this. --Worldbruce (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  Hi @Worldbruce and @Xkalponik! My mistake. I misread what X had written and believed this was just a repeatedly flagged article. Yes, it does appear that notability criteria has become stricter. I would now recommend Moving to Draftspace. PickleG13 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete dearth of sources. I don't really see the point in draftifying, the chances that the current contents would be of any help for a new article near null, let alone within 6 months. And I wouldn't really be too surprised at the age, Xkalponik, there are a lot of these articles, I doubt you'd get through an appreciable percentage even if you went through them every waking hour for years, that pretty much sets the lower bound on age. PROD would probably be fine for most of them. Alpha3031 (t • c) 14:05, 16 September 2023 (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.