993:, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving
788:
NSPORTS is expressly outside its scope. Before you come into areas like AfD shouting the odds about this article and that article I strongly recommend that you work on articles to gain experience and, in the longer term, credibility. As for the garbage you have written immediately above, I suggest that you are not reasonable in the slightest. Of course the
Sinhalese sources exist and of course they provide information, especially at local level, that English sources cannot. Real world calling.
740:" for Mr Kudigame, a player who appeared in one match in which he did not even bat or bowl. Even if a source gives us his first name in passing, that is still considered to be "trivial mention" and therefore insufficient to establish notability. Just having his full name (trivial mention) or statistical profile (falls under routine coverage) appear in one or more reliable sources is NOT sufficient to claim that he qualifies to have a standalone article.
695:- the two basic notability "guidelines" completely contradict each other, each rendering the other completely worthless. The only way to work to guidelines is by following simple, universally applicable notability criteria. As Jack explained, press coverage has been proven, rendering the main excuse for sending to deletion completely meaningless. It has now been proven that there is coverage outside of the links provided
1095:
outside of the links provided". You are agreeing with Jack's rationale which is based on NEXIST and have also claimed that there is proof of press coverage which is basically what NEXIST says (existence of sources which are not in the article). I can not find the so-called press coverage sources being cited in the article, as of now, and it has been 9 years already.
859:
when we do so, it would probably just be a reference in John Smith's "List of all-time
Southampton FC players", published by Anonymous Random Books in 1976. Why do we trust John Smith more than anyone else? As for citing numerous guidelines, the fact that the two main guidelines directly contradict each other should render both completely worthless.
223:. Yet again, this editor is citing BLP1E in flagrant breach of its own ruling that WP:NSPORTS is outside its scope. Sports people noted for a single event are subject to the SSG as this editor might realise if he actually takes the trouble to READ the guideline. This is a disruptive AfD which is bang out of order. See also the entries below re
476:
need to be scapped in favor of something actually in line with where reliable sources are likely to be found. A general review of all sports guidelines is actually in order. Our sports coverage is way out of touch with reality. Starting with the assumption that every participant in the close to free for all 1904 Olympics is notable.
242:- we either need to put a stop to frivolous nomination of articles which clearly meet WP:CRIN, or to have a serious discussion about whether WP:CRIN is fit for purpose. As for "references", the "references" are the same as the "external links", it's just that back then they were more often being added
615:
given where and when he played in his only known game of cricket. With an initial and surname and one scorecard we can say so little about the chap that I see no realistic possibility that the article can be developed in any way. If such sources can be located then it is easy to recreate the article.
614:
or redirect (or smerge) if a suitable list can be found. We have incomplete database entries only which demonstrate probable existence rather than the in depth sources required to show notability. As far as I can tell those sources do not exist and I feel it is going to be hard to assume that they do
374:
The criteria (CRIN) have been in place for 13 years doesn't mean they are "probably fine". Especially when you look at the number of articles that have been deleted in the past few weeks despite meeting the said criteria. And GNG doesn't become "completely needless and pointless" just because you say
198:
BLP which is unreferenced since 2009 and fails GNG. We don't even have the rudimentary information required to write a biography: the person's given name or date of birth. He appeared in one match which is the sole claim of notability (BLP1E). According to the article text, "he did not bat or bowl in
475:
neither of the sources add up to significant coverage. This article is orders of magnitude below the general notability guidelines. We have for far too long included articles on people with literally no coverage. I am not sure how to do it, but it is 100% clear that the cricket notability guidelines
858:
If the two most comprehensive and accurately compiled cricket databases on the
Internet are "trivial", please cite what you would consider to be non-trivial references. The irony is that usually it is the other way around. It takes six months to find a text reference to, say, a football player, and
787:
It is disruptive because you and your friend Rhadow are pursuing some kind of agenda without knowledge or understanding of what you are doing. For example, I note that you have YET AGAIN cited BLP1E as your main reason for opposing this article. If you care to READ that guideline you will see that
586:
Sadly Jack, the "timewasters" appear to be getting their own way via a set of rather tasty and contradictory
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. "This is disruption, but not as we know it, Jim". If these "timewasters" simply worked by the most basic WP guideline that we learn on our first day, NPOV, there
522:
The cricket guidelines have done us fine for the last 12 years and it's only in the last month or so that they have been causing problems, mostly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT - but also, it has to be sadly said, because of the contradictory guidelines regarding notability. Once again we need to say, "If
1094:
It was a request (see the "Please" at the start of the note?), not dictating. And these are your own words in your keep vote: "As Jack explained, press coverage has been proven, rendering the main excuse for sending to deletion completely meaningless. It has now been proven that there is coverage
493:
into a list of Galle
Cricket Club players. It's clear that diluting bare statistical data across a multitude of almost contentless microstubs is becoming an untenable situation. The sources are not even sufficient to determine this person's full name. Merging into lists of players by club seems a
1081:
to do with NEXIST, once again I was merely thanking Jack and Power-enwiki for bringing up a point which I had never considered before. I commented earlier that because the two basic notability guidelines contradict each other, the only fair yardstick is the brightline one appearance criterion.
538:- at the time of writing, this "article" contains 41 words of text about this obscure person and a whopping 116 words in a bizarre footnote not actually about the player, but full of circuitous wikilawyering and special pleading, attempting to explain why this article should be exempt from
975:
in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated
837:
Dee, we have over and over again pointed out that the places in which the basic notability guidelines are noted, work on completely contradictory principles. This is why all of the sweeping notability guideline pages can and should be completely disregarded. Yes, we
648:
for every single first-class player, the match report she did check proves not only that
Sinhalese sources exist but also that their cricket coverage effectively matches that of newspapers in the English-speaking countries. The fact of this level of coverage by
882:, if you disagree with that you should take it up at the discussion page (where an active discussion is under way where I agree with the nominator's basic point). Procedurally, a consensus can't over-turn the 5 pillars or the 3 core content policies. However,
986:
820:
want to with the limited free time I have for
Knowledge (XXG) and certainly not be told by you regarding that. Sure, any guideline that opposes your point of view is "garbage". If there is anyone shouting the odds at AfDs these days, it's you.
326:
that SSGs have nothing to do with GNG and prove GNG to be completely needless and pointless. The fact that we have kept to the same basic inclusion criteria since I joined, and that nobody has been able to come up with better criteria in
52:. Clearly no consensus on whether to delete or keep the page. Given how many of these articles have been put through AFD recently, the next step, if any, should probably be an RFC about the Cricket SSG, rather than more AFDs. --
570:, for explanation of a facet that is not directly relevant to the subject. The key point you have noticeably ignored is that Mr Kudigame has THREE inline citations of THREE reliable sources and, as the footnote explains,
199:
the match"; that being the case, there is absolutely nothing about the player to write in the article. After a successful deletion through PROD, the article was REFUNDed with the contestant's rationale: "easily passes
758:
And how is this nomination disruptive? I have already cited multiple policies/guidelines which this article clearly fails to meet making it eligible for a deletion discussion. Time-wasters? I would appreciate it if
167:
1122:
The article is now referenced. GNG is irrelevant if the lede of WP:N is satisfied. Nor is this a proper deletion nomination, as notability is not relevant to deletion without analysis of WP:ATD.
800:
BLP1E is one of the several guidelines I cited, GNG being the main one and you continue to conveniently skip talking about GNG in all of your utterly rubbish rationales. BLP1E states
407:
In which case appropriate conversation needs to take place to change the guidelines, and until these guidelines are changed I will simply assume the guidelines are fine as they are.
435:
The whole point of every single cricket deletion discussion is the simple fact that WP:BIO and WP:N directly contradict each other, each rendering the other completely meaningless.
1020:
once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
814:
once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface.
300:
120:
262:
566:
If it wasn't for a certain clique of time-wasters, there would be no need for the footnote. Surely you are not claiming that footnotes are deprecated? A footnote is used,
281:
644:, for a specific match report and found additional information about that player. While we obviously cannot expect anyone in Sri Lanka to perform short-term checks of
460:- I have added a second source just in case the WP:ONESOURCE argument pops up here... Anyone who wishes to reformat these as references is free to do so if they wish.
634:. Although these obsessive anti-CRIN individuals will not admit it, there are in existence significant Sri Lankan sources as we were able to establish in the case of
376:
161:
968:
1022:
It has been 9 years since the creation of this article and surely that qualifies as enough time passed without any proof of existence of such sources.
419:
Which guidelines need to be changed? It doesn't matter if CRIN is changed, the subject still has to meet GNG which this particular gentleman doesn't.
635:
808:-- It says "may support the notability" and does not state that sports articles are totally exempt from the guideline as you claim. And per the
127:
355:
523:
the guidelines need to be scrapped, we need to work, as a team and collaboratively, on new guidelines which can be universally applied".
700:
And while WP:DONTKNOWTHEGUYSFIRSTNAME sounds like a nice rationale for deletion, it sounds a tad unwieldy for a hashtag, doesn't it? ;)
913:
58:
17:
387:." Looks like the current community consensus isn't the same as what it was 13 years ago, and perhaps it's time you accepted that.
803:
93:
88:
97:
182:
149:
80:
1150:
40:
620:
379:
wrote, "It seems clear to me from the RFC that community consensus is now that the sports-specific guidelines (i.e.
1127:
481:
143:
806:
provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.
616:
883:
907:
1146:
722:
139:
36:
1131:
1106:
1089:
1068:
1033:
1004:
951:
935:
919:
866:
849:
832:
795:
782:
751:
726:
707:
687:
664:
624:
598:
581:
561:
530:
513:
485:
467:
442:
430:
414:
398:
365:
338:
311:
292:
273:
253:
234:
214:
62:
84:
1123:
842:
stop talking about these sweeping notability guidelines, but not for the reasons you are suggesting.
477:
672:. There are now inline citations from THREE independent sources in the article, all of them meeting
189:
175:
1042:
1015:
994:
809:
677:
654:
571:
224:
76:
68:
764:
380:
1086:
941:
932:
903:
863:
846:
704:
595:
527:
464:
439:
411:
362:
335:
305:
286:
267:
250:
53:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1145:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
887:
879:
351:
200:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1054:
718:
574:
applies to Sri Lankan cricketers because reliable and expansive
Sinhalese sources DO EXIST.
899:
891:
768:
736:
384:
1101:
1063:
1028:
987:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old
Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination)
982:
827:
777:
746:
425:
393:
209:
680:. I suggest that this AfD is closed immediately as a complete waste of everybody's time.
673:
155:
1046:
999:
946:
790:
760:
682:
659:
576:
554:
506:
229:
895:
816:
As for "working on articles to gain experience" or whatever, I will choose to do what
717:
per BlackJack. If Sri Lankan sources exist, there is no reason for this AfD to exist.
638:. A contact in Sri Lanka was willing to check a highly reputable Sinhalese newspaper,
543:
539:
203:." This article serves as an excellent example of why we can't let SSGs override GNG.
1083:
1057:
were in agreement with BlackJack's rationale and align with the content of NEXIST.
1050:
976:
non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.
929:
860:
843:
701:
592:
524:
461:
436:
408:
359:
332:
247:
676:
and, by means of a footnote, an explanation of how the article meets the terms of
114:
1019:
902:
is concerned, this clearly qualifies as valid content for a specialized almanac.
813:
801:
494:
better way to present this very trivial data. If no suitable list exists, simply
1096:
1058:
1023:
822:
772:
741:
420:
388:
204:
1077:
Please stop dictating what other admins' thoughts should be. My argument had
734:- I don't think it is reasonable to assume that sources exist which provide "
547:
499:
928:
Never thought about 5P1 before. Cheers for bringing this to our attention.
964:
640:
246:
external links. Exactly the same links but with a different heading.
1139:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
940:
Yes, it's brilliant. It never occurred to me either. Thank you,
894:
are trivially met, and the existing sources are sufficient for
997:, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer.
354:
and is likely to contribute to this AfD decided to pipe up
110:
106:
102:
174:
802:
some subject specific notability guidelines such as
653:
and other
Sinhalese publications meets the terms of
331:, is proof that the SSG criteria are probably fine.
188:
969:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna
301:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1153:). No further edits should be made to this page.
263:list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions
886:isn't any of these. With a lack of content,
346:- I still find it suspicious that nobody who
8:
299:Note: This debate has been included in the
282:list of Cricket-related deletion discussions
280:Note: This debate has been included in the
261:Note: This debate has been included in the
944:(once again, as it happens). All the best.
1014:- Please disregard any keep vote based on
298:
279:
260:
1018:. That guideline states this at the end:
546:. This is very clearly a hopeless case.
636:Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)
1049:in both his votes. The keep votes of
322:- actually, cricket articles are the
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
657:. These nominations are disruptive.
985:when closing the directly relevant
804:Knowledge (XXG):Notability (sports)
24:
1045:argument was directly invoked by
971:, "the correct interpretation of
812:guidline you keep crying about,
1:
961:Additional rationale for keep
878:- this is clearly allowed by
375:so. The closing admin of the
1132:12:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
1107:07:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
1090:15:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
1069:13:58, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
1034:13:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
1005:15:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
952:14:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
936:22:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
920:22:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
867:22:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
850:15:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
833:13:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
796:20:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
783:19:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
752:19:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
727:17:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
708:14:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
688:11:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
665:10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
625:05:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
599:14:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
582:12:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
562:11:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
531:06:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
514:09:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
486:01:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
468:03:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
443:22:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
431:22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
415:21:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
399:21:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
366:21:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
339:21:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
312:20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
293:20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
274:20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
254:20:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
235:20:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
215:20:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
63:07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
383:, etc) do not override the
1170:
350:with the basic tenets of
1142:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
1012:Note to closing admin
737:significant coverage
963:. I would add, per
769:assumes good faith
771:once in a while.
617:Blue Square Thing
587:would be nothing
478:John Pack Lambert
314:
295:
276:
1161:
1144:
1104:
1099:
1066:
1061:
1055:User:Lepricavark
1031:
1026:
1021:
916:
910:
830:
825:
815:
807:
780:
775:
749:
744:
670:Inline citations
552:
504:
428:
423:
396:
391:
310:
291:
272:
212:
207:
193:
192:
178:
130:
118:
100:
34:
1169:
1168:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1151:deletion review
1140:
1124:Unscintillating
1102:
1097:
1064:
1059:
1029:
1024:
914:
908:
876:Procedural Keep
828:
823:
778:
773:
747:
742:
558:
548:
510:
500:
426:
421:
394:
389:
377:most recent AFD
304:
285:
266:
240:General request
210:
205:
135:
126:
91:
75:
72:
61:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1167:
1165:
1156:
1155:
1135:
1134:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1111:
1110:
1109:
1072:
1071:
1047:User:BlackJack
1037:
1036:
1008:
1007:
978:
977:
957:
956:
955:
954:
938:
923:
922:
872:
871:
870:
869:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
761:User:BlackJack
755:
754:
729:
711:
710:
697:
696:
690:
667:
628:
627:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
556:
533:
517:
516:
508:
488:
470:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
447:
446:
445:
402:
401:
369:
368:
341:
329:thirteen years
316:
315:
296:
277:
257:
256:
237:
221:Point of order
196:
195:
132:
71:
66:
57:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1166:
1154:
1152:
1148:
1143:
1137:
1136:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1118:
1117:
1108:
1105:
1100:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1085:
1080:
1076:
1075:
1074:
1073:
1070:
1067:
1062:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1035:
1032:
1027:
1017:
1013:
1010:
1009:
1006:
1003:
1001:
996:
992:
988:
984:
981:Finally, per
980:
979:
974:
970:
966:
962:
959:
958:
953:
950:
948:
943:
939:
937:
934:
931:
927:
926:
925:
924:
921:
917:
911:
905:
901:
898:. As far as
897:
893:
889:
885:
884:WP:Notability
881:
877:
874:
873:
868:
865:
862:
857:
851:
848:
845:
841:
836:
835:
834:
831:
826:
819:
811:
805:
799:
798:
797:
794:
792:
786:
785:
784:
781:
776:
770:
766:
763:behaves in a
762:
757:
756:
753:
750:
745:
739:
738:
733:
730:
728:
724:
720:
716:
713:
712:
709:
706:
703:
699:
698:
694:
691:
689:
686:
684:
679:
675:
671:
668:
666:
663:
661:
656:
652:
647:
643:
642:
637:
633:
630:
629:
626:
622:
618:
613:
610:
609:
600:
597:
594:
590:
585:
584:
583:
580:
578:
573:
569:
565:
564:
563:
560:
559:
553:
551:
545:
541:
537:
534:
532:
529:
526:
521:
520:
519:
518:
515:
512:
511:
505:
503:
497:
492:
489:
487:
483:
479:
474:
471:
469:
466:
463:
459:
456:
455:
444:
441:
438:
434:
433:
432:
429:
424:
418:
417:
416:
413:
410:
406:
405:
404:
403:
400:
397:
392:
386:
382:
378:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
364:
361:
357:
353:
349:
345:
342:
340:
337:
334:
330:
325:
321:
318:
317:
313:
309:
308:
302:
297:
294:
290:
289:
283:
278:
275:
271:
270:
264:
259:
258:
255:
252:
249:
245:
241:
238:
236:
233:
231:
226:
222:
219:
218:
217:
216:
213:
208:
202:
191:
187:
184:
181:
177:
173:
169:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
141:
138:
137:Find sources:
133:
129:
125:
122:
116:
112:
108:
104:
99:
95:
90:
86:
82:
78:
74:
73:
70:
67:
65:
64:
60:
59:contributions
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1141:
1138:
1119:
1078:
1051:User:Bobo192
1011:
998:
990:
972:
960:
945:
942:power~enwiki
904:power~enwiki
875:
839:
817:
789:
735:
731:
714:
692:
681:
669:
658:
650:
645:
639:
631:
611:
588:
575:
567:
555:
549:
535:
507:
501:
495:
490:
472:
457:
347:
343:
328:
323:
319:
307:CAPTAIN RAJU
306:
288:CAPTAIN RAJU
287:
269:CAPTAIN RAJU
268:
243:
239:
228:
220:
197:
185:
179:
171:
164:
158:
152:
146:
136:
123:
54:Patar knight
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
991:keep result
767:manner and
719:Lepricavark
632:Strong keep
162:free images
77:I. Kudigame
69:I. Kudigame
983:I JethroBT
568:inter alia
1147:talk page
1043:WP:NEXIST
1016:WP:NEXIST
995:WP:NEXIST
810:WP:NEXIST
678:WP:NEXIST
655:WP:NEXIST
572:WP:NEXIST
348:disagrees
225:WP:NEXIST
37:talk page
1149:or in a
973:presumed
765:WP:CIVIL
651:Dinamina
646:Dinamina
641:Dinamina
591:debate.
381:WP:NCRIC
121:View log
39:or in a
1079:nothing
989:with a
888:WP:NPOV
880:WP:CRIN
732:Comment
536:Comment
458:Comment
352:WP:CRIN
344:Comment
320:Comment
227:, etc.
201:WP:CRIN
168:WP refs
156:scholar
94:protect
89:history
900:WP:5P1
892:WP:NOR
840:should
612:Delete
496:delete
473:Delete
385:WP:GNG
140:Google
98:delete
674:WP:RS
491:Merge
324:proof
183:JSTOR
144:books
128:Stats
115:views
107:watch
103:links
16:<
1128:talk
1120:Keep
1084:Bobo
1053:and
1000:Jack
947:Jack
930:Bobo
896:WP:V
890:and
861:Bobo
844:Bobo
791:Jack
723:talk
715:Keep
702:Bobo
693:Keep
683:Jack
660:Jack
621:talk
593:Bobo
577:Jack
550:Reyk
544:WP:N
542:and
540:WP:V
525:Bobo
502:Reyk
482:talk
462:Bobo
437:Bobo
409:Bobo
360:Bobo
358:...
356:here
333:Bobo
248:Bobo
230:Jack
176:FENS
150:news
111:logs
85:talk
81:edit
1098:Dee
1060:Dee
1025:Dee
967:at
965:DGG
824:Dee
774:Dee
743:Dee
557:YO!
509:YO!
422:Dee
390:Dee
206:Dee
190:TWL
119:– (
56:- /
1130:)
1103:03
1065:03
1030:03
1002:|
949:|
918:)
912:,
829:03
793:|
779:03
748:03
725:)
685:|
662:|
623:)
589:to
579:|
498:.
484:)
427:03
395:03
303:.
284:.
265:.
244:as
232:|
211:03
170:)
113:|
109:|
105:|
101:|
96:|
92:|
87:|
83:|
1126:(
1087:.
933:.
915:ν
909:π
906:(
864:.
847:.
818:I
721:(
705:.
619:(
596:.
528:.
480:(
465:.
440:.
412:.
363:.
336:.
251:.
194:)
186:·
180:·
172:·
165:·
159:·
153:·
147:·
142:(
134:(
131:)
124:·
117:)
79:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.