Jump to content

Talk:Wasim Akram

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Undoubtedly Wasim Akram is the greatest bowler of all time. plenty of reasons are behind this conclusion. if the ability of a bowler is taken into account, there is no one comparable to Akram. his record is great. but the record is not all that to be seen to designate a player.many people say that warne is better than murali because warne is from Australia where the pitch helps him a little.so, why not this reason is taken in respect of Akram? Akram is from the Indian sub-continent, where nothing favors him, except the reverse swing.I wonder what would have been the record of Akram if he came from Australia or west indies, where the bowlers get many priviledges.no one can produce the balls that he produced in his cricketing career.

so, Wasim is far better than anyone else.

from Yasin.

"where nothing favors him, except the reverse swing. I wonder what would have been the record of Akram if he came from Australia or west indies, where the bowlers get many privileges"

Had he come from Australia, he would have settled into the team as a classical left-arm swing bowler. In other words, he became a quick bowler with unconventional abilities because he came from Pakistan.

The world of cricket can not provide a bowler better than Wasim Akram, it is the universal truth.

From Muhammad Muneeb Aslam

"Whatever the pitch condition of the subcontinent is, he proved by his performance. By saying that pitches from subcontinent help bowlers that why he has good record then why don't every bowler from subcontinent have the same caliber?" Excuse me but did yasin just say akram is far better than warnie and even murilai is beter murili chucks while akram is over 200 wickets behind warnie mates warnies the best ever bowler

POV

[edit]

I hate to put the pov tag back on this page but I don't see I have a choice. The article seems to be highly partisan and is littered with highly POV statements and unverified claims. --LiamE 15:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The NPOV issues have been addressed by Cherry Blossom Tree so removing tag. Still a couple of cites needed though. --LiamE 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Surprisingly, no one has ever mentioned match fixing. I have added it under "controversies" section. Forgot to sign. Zs31

There are several flaws on this page - the first and foremost being that Akram was NOT discovered by Imran Khan! Imran was in Australia playing for New South Wales when Wasim Akram was picked for the New Zealand home ODI and then overseas NZ tour. He bowled for a brief time to Javed Miandad in nets who had requested a few club bowlers for practice. That is how he was "discovered" - by Miandad. Interestingly, he had been rejected for Under 19 squad as too wayward a few months earlier. You can probably verify this from his autobiography: Wasim (1998) or Imran Khan's 2nd one: Allround View (1988).

Photo

[edit]

The photo as it stands isn't acceptable for Wikipedia use, and may well get deleted. Simply asserting that the copyright holder allows it to be used for any purpose is not good enough; a source, and evidence of its copyright status, must be given. If this is not forthcoming the photo will have to go. I know this sounds harsh, but it's vitally important that we stay within WP:Copyrights. Loganberry (Talk) 14:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a lie. It's stolen from http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/ci/content/player/43547.html. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:59, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a shame, especially for such an important player... it's so hard to get photos of cricketers, so I understand the attraction of using photos like that - but we simply cannot do it. If by some chance anyone reading this has a photo of Wasim they'd be willing to upload under an acceptable licence (GFDL, some Creative Commons licences or public domain) then it would be very welcome. Loganberry (Talk) 15:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for changing the left-hand to right-hand bat. Was thinking of a famous innings which I couldn't distinguish from Waqar who was hitting well and thought Wasim was the man of that innings. I was dissapointed that he wasn't left-hand aswell cause I am lefty and he was my idol but apparently brain explosion. It was him who hit Steve Waugh for 6 on the last ball to tie a game in the 92 world cup, right? Anyone got his height,saw him next to Shoaib who claims 6' exactly and he seemed maybe 2-3inches taller comfortably.

It was Asif Mujtaba who hit the six. It was the 1992-93 World Series Cup, not the World Cup. Tintin 12:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway anyone got Wasim's accurate height?

File:Wasimm.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Wasimm.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:W.Akram.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:W.Akram.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:19, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Wasim Akram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Wasim Akram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Wasim Akram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Wasim Akram. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Australian?

[edit]

So, it says he's Pakistani Australian. I get that his wife is Australian, but does that really make him Pakistani Australian? Or am I missing something? Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead image

[edit]

IPs are warring over this. I think the one without the cap and glasses gives a clearer depiction of Akram's face. Also better lighting / colour. Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:02 Mon 22, AEDT) 11:02, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And, now that I load the full-size versions, better resolution and focus also. Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:05 Mon 22, AEDT) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Third one's a decent shot. Question is: should we depict people as they appear most recently, or as they appeared closer to the height of their careers? Pelagic ( messages ) – (22:13 Mon 22, AEDT) 11:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pelagic: I would urge to use use third portrait as per MOS:LEADIMAGE and the second reason behind using second image is just because the third portrait has been nominated for deletation and the reason behind the reverting that ip's edits is because they tried many times in the past to readd the same image but all their foolish attempts got reverted as some of which diffs are:[1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. In conclusion, third portrait is best.119.160.117.213 (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The edit-warring from both IP editor ended with the article put on semi-protection. There is a deletion discussion on commons [7] but the uploader Fuzheado who's an admin here has commented that they took the picture, so I highly doubt it will be deleted. Of the three, the middle image is by far the worst option. I prefer the last image as the quality is at least as good as the first, it's 11 years newer and once the deletion request closes, there won't be a question about the status. Ravensfire (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi protected edit request on 1 March 2021

[edit]

Can anyone change File:Wasim Akram.jpg to File:Wasim-akram-gesf-2018-7878.jpg with caption "Wasim Akram in 2018". Thank You. 119.160.117.205 (talk) 09:23, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. The deletion discussion is closed now, so it makes sense to add it in. Volteer1 (talk) 14:44, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP violation

[edit]

Mention of caste at this project requires self-identification in the case of living people – see here for details. But Wasim Akram seems to have never self-identified with any caste. So I will remove this BLP violation.

Note that this article has been hosting the made-up/unsourced claim of the Arain caste since 2011 (see here). So it might have been copied by the Pakistani newspapers which regularly plagiarise this project, just like the Indian newspapers. So beware of the WP:Mirrors. As far as the cricket stat websites like cricbuzz are concerned, they are at best suitable for interview-related details in the BLPs. Note that the relevant page's oldest archived version goes back to 24 April 2015 when we were already hosting the Arain claim based on a fake ref, e.g. see this version dated 16 April 2015. So this site has copied it from here.

Finally, there is at least one bylined article from a reliable newspaper which mentions both Wasim and Waqar Younis as Jats,[1] but that's irrelevant due to the lack of self-identification in both cases. - NitinMlk (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Patel, Aakar (21 February 2015). "The fast bowler conundrum". Mint. Archived from the original on 12 March 2021. Wasim Akram and Waqar Younis are both Jats.

Opening Section

[edit]

There is no mention of any of his achievements in Test cricket in the opening section of this page - seems strange and feels like an oversight given the numerous records Akram holds in the premier format. Will0608 (talk) 02:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of Sultan: A Memoir into Wasim Akram

[edit]

There's insufficient content in the article about the book to warrant it being covered as a separate subject. Most of the coverage in the sources is information about Akram, rather than about the book itself. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds sensible to me: I was wondering if the book was independently notable. Spike 'em (talk) 11:20, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The book passes Wikipedia:NBOOK. I request the closing administrator to see this third line of WP:NOMERGE which says "The topics are discrete subjects warranting their own articles, with each meeting the General Notability Guidelines, even if short.". ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. IMO 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 are full length reviews. The Hindu is WP:RS per RSP, The Hindustan Times and The Tribune India also appears to meet WP:NEWSORG. Similarly, The Times Literary Supplement is also WP:RS. These appear to meet WP:NBOOK criteria 1, @Spike 'em: am I missing something about how notability is not satisfied? (Note that I marked this as reviewed during WP:NPP but if there's consensus here I can unreview it). Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:01, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that WP:NBOOK is met, but in my opinion a valid WP:MERGEREASON is that I do not expect the stub to be expanded with material that is not better added to the Wasim Akram article. Things that the book says about Akram can be added to the Akram bio and cited to the book. There can be a section in the Akram article containing any information about the book. I think this would serve readers better than separate articles. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 21:12, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    IMHO the reviews to me contain significant text that is mainly about evaluating the book (e.g., Even if this book is not lit by great epiphany or staggering revelation, no work of Haigh’s is less than very engaging. One can’t help feeling, however, that it would have come out as much more nuanced and thought-provoking as a biography than a ghosted autobiography of a great cricketer; here may be the odd error like a reference to Taj Lands End in Delhi, Akram persuasively argues his innocence in the two controversies of his cricket career, ball-tampering and match-fixing; Even if this book is not lit by great epiphany or staggering revelation, no work of Haigh’s is less than very engaging from various reviews not including the paywalled ones, sorry that this is far too long) instead of biographical details. Should the reception section be expanded, IMHO these details would be better suited in a separate article that could be expanded rather than in the biography. I know this is subjective, but personally I believe this has some level of independent notability (criteria 3 of NOMERGE), given this current article at 60k bytes is already a bit long per WP:SIZESPLIT, IMO it meets criteria 1 of WP:NOMERGE. I fully understand that I'm in the minority and see where you're coming from, but I'll respectfully disagree and weakly oppose. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found three more reviews from Business Standard, The Asian Age and The Quint and I think we can find more information from the newspaper The News International. ​​​​​​​𝐋𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐕𝐨𝐥𝐝𝐞𝐦𝐨𝐫𝐭𝟕𝟐𝟖🧙‍♂️Let's Talk ! 09:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment WP:BOOKCRIT is met, but WP:NBOOK says this is not an absolute guarantee that there will necessarily be a separate, stand-alone article entirely dedicated to that book. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Writing the book is something that Akram did, so should be written about at Wasim Akram; the book tells us things about Akram that belong in the Wasim Akram article. It is not necessary or appropriate to list all the book reviews (as the spinoff article currently does) - these can be references, and per WP:CITETRIM we should pick the 'best' ones, the in-depth reviews above short, superficial ones or reviews behind a paywall. Thus while I respect VickKiang's argument, a couple of paragraphs in the autobiography section isn't making the main article much longer or excessively long. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 10:19, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Don't merge - enough coverage to flesh out the article. See WP:STUB if you're confused why they exist. 137.59.144.86 (talk) 18:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sports College

[edit]

Advise

==

[edit]

We need Sports College in Pakistan to Ensure BS in Sports.

Our interest is sports more than Business.


Thanks, 103.162.136.90 (talk) 22:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Advise

[edit]

You are eligible to become Match Referee after Age 45.

Note:

You can declare Out to any Candidate or Player of any Country.

Thanks, 103.162.136.90 (talk) 07:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wasim_Akram&oldid=1252194936"