1826:, for all my faults, sockpuppetry is not one. I have been investigated twice. Go ahead, do it again. I will not react the way I did the first time. I have said what needs to be said about DUCK allegations. I bear no malice to any individual editor. You have done a great job over many years. My concern is that the value of WP is diluted without a reasonable -- and comparable -- bar for each article. We have a family of articles about cricketers who never attracted the attention of any press, appeared only once in play for teams that themselves never distinguished themselves, and have scant evidence. I am personally not convinced that CricketArchive and cricinfo are independent, but I won't argue that. I will argue that cricket and dart-throwing should not have special rules carved out for those sports only.
1451:- I see nothing beyond routine coverage: the chap existed, he played in one match for which we have a scoreboard. We have nothing else to suggest any form of notability. As such he does not, in my view, meet the GNG. I was under the impression that recent conversations had come to the conclusion that it is the GNG that such articles need to meet and not the notability criteria of a sports project. I can see little or no hope that this person will have sufficient in-depth sources about them to meet the GNG and so I see no alternative other than to delete.
1362:. I have already told you, above, that the article says Dinaparna is a former first-class cricketer and it does not say anything about him being a former (local club level) cricketer. As for confirmation that he is a former first-class cricketer, I have already told you, above, that ESPNcricinfo confirms the SPAN (i.e., beginning to end) of his first-class career from 1992/93 to 1992/93. Therefore, that source has verified that he began
308:- also, as per not knowing the cricketer's first name, there are once again hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of this on Knowledge (XXG), and if this is being used as a reason for nominating the article for deletion, I suggest the same is done to the other articles which match this fact, in spite of meeting painfully simple-to-understand (although, as we've learnt, impossible, contradictory, and meaningless to implement) criteria.
2118:. The page was cached on 15 May 2016, five days before the date of the diff I provided earlier. If you click on Arun Sharma's link to open his profile, you'll be landing on a cached version from 8 July 2016 which doesn't show that he is a Test player. But at that time (May 2016), his profile showed that he had played one Test (the same Test match the web archive link of which I have provided above).
2019:. They did fix the profile several weeks after I dropped them a mail asking for correction. And here we have an article on some L. Dinaparna which is entirely carved out of his player profile from these two websites both of which have been found to have such glaring mistakes. I am not saying Cricinfo and CricketArchive are unreliable; they are the best we've got. But to create an article using
1659:. Sports guidelines are almost insultingly easy to follow and ensure that every single cricketer who has made a single major cricketing appearance (which in modern-day terms is painfully easy to define) is equally worthy of an article. To suggest otherwise is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. If we want to redefine notability guidelines, with the help of community consensus, a single AfD page is
286:- I'm sure there are still thousands of cricketing articles with just a link to Cricket Archive and no link to Cricinfo. This is an easily rectifiable problem by anyone who knows the first thing about cricket and I have now added a link to Cricinfo as well. Since this is the only issue raised by Rhadow, I suggest the sole complaint about WP's inclusion of the article is rendered null and void.
1013:
project. With respect to providing "encyclopaedic coverage of subjects like cricket which interest millions of people worldwide", this particular page got a total of 25 pageviews from 1 September to 29 September, which is less than 1 per day (not that it has anything to do with this AFD, but looks like
Dinaparna isn't of interest to millions of people).
1960:. It is likely there are sources in Sri Lanka that would confirm broader notability if that is necessary (though I don't really see why we ask "experts" on specific topics to come up with sector-specific notability guidelines if we're constantly going to squash their expertise with the weight of opinion of people who aren't experts). Has anyone asked
494:- I apologize Jack. I am partially to blame for the over-external linking - although as you can tell by my stats, there are a lot of Sri Lankan cricketers whose articles require external linking to CA and/or CI. Not that that will stop people nominating random articles for deletion because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT...
475:- no point trying to argue with people who know nothing about cricket or Knowledge (XXG) guidelines on first-class cricketers who are not prepared to offer their own guidelines in return, Jack. The fact that nobody who has challenged our guidelines on cricket biography articles has been able to provide
2134:
Anyhoo, coming back to your original point, I asked this question on a previous AfD and the answer to the question "how do we rely on one source when we have two available to us" is simple. It was made clear to me in a previous AfD that there were far too many cricketers - even Test cricketers - with
1899:
How do you judge his contribution to be "insignificant"? That is not the issue. The fact that it happened is the point. As for that precious little discussion which people keep pointing out, that is a messy discussion which has been mostly discredited, and shown to be irrelevant to the situation, and
1627:
It's been over 36 hours, Jack. Somehow, I doubt BST has a suitable rationale other than "I don't like it", and "please take these discussions elsewhere". This is what we've been doing for the last 13 years - this is how we come up with these criteria, and this is why these criteria have been stuck by
1198:
Unindenting: Please note that this user's only objection to the existence of this article is expressing whether this player is a "former cricketer". Nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of said article. Discussing whether this cricketer is dead or alive is an irrelevant point compared to the
1032:
For the same reason as instead of the phrase "is a former", you may use the phrase "was a". Past tense. Basic
English grammar. Are you saying one of these is more correct than the other? If so please feel free to change it, but please know that we could change it back on the same basis as the one you
592:
To add individual first-class players willy-nilly to a list without including articles about every single one based on the same consistent criteria is a painfully obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Would you please suggest which of these
Western Australia cricketers you mention, for example, don't deserve
376:
a single appararance that did not provide enough coverage for us to even know the full name of someone, especially within the last 30 years, is just not enough to show notability. If people think it is, than cricket notability has no connection with reality. Sports notability should be set at a level
1782:
Please consider the rationale for sending this article for deletion - "insufficiently referenced" and, essentially, WP:ONESOURCE, and notice that neither of these criteria is true. This AfD discussion therefore, once again, goes far beyond the incredibly simple-to-understand criteria we work by, and
1012:
Before you get all aggressive on me, let me remind you that I just expressed my point of view which I'm entitled to even if it is different from yours. I am experienced enough to give an objective opinion on a cricket AFD, being a WP:CRIC member myself and having written hundreds of articles for the
776:
Please stop contradicting yourself. And please don't respond to this, I am bored of trying to justify alteration of inclusion criteria to someone who has, on various occasions, decided to flout their own arbitrary inclusion criteria. If you wish to make a serious effort to alter notability criteria,
605:
I normally do not create an article for a cricketer until he has played a handful of matches (first-class/List A/Twenty20) because it gives enough matches to write a summary about his career which includes stuff like first hundred, first five-for, number of runs in the season, etc. Also, there would
1738:
There is plenty of reliable source coverage which has been made plainly available in the external links and the references. If you are unaware that this source is reliable and trusted then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the sources given, the way in which they are constructed and compiled,
759:
I wouldn't nominate them for deletion just because they have played fewer than 10 first-class matches but I would nominate them if they don't meet GNG. Some players with less than 10 first-class appearances satisfy GNG, and some with over 10 don't. I have created many articles for players with less
654:
Please don't change the subject. You claim that this cricketer needs to have played a "handful of matches" and you refuse to specify how many this is. If you want us to work to your criteria, where you want us to randomly define a point at which to create a list, you're going to have to be slightly
427:
and others, the key rule is that a player must have made at least ONE top-level appearance for notability. As for not knowing the full name, the man is Sri Lankan and coverage of that country's sport in
English language publications is limited; GNG makes due allowance for this and it is why we have
199:
This biography of a living person (probably) is insufficiently referenced. If a single reference to a paywall website is sufficient, then we should simply reference the website once, because WP adds no value. There is insufficient information on the page to determine notability; we don't even know
1964:
for assistance on this? Many of our projects and contributions on the
English WP already have inbuilt bias towards UK/US/Antipodean topics because we can access sources for those relatively simply; just because this one is difficult doesn't mean that we should give up on it. Who does it benefit to
1560:
I'm not sure whether you are talking to Jack or me when you say that, BST, but, "a view which is so prejudiced"? Simply because we are pointing out that the term which is used is undefinable, contradictory, and almost completely inapplicable? That is the fault of not a single one of us. Frankly if
938:
As for finding "significant coverage in reliable sources", we need the assistance of a Sri Lankan editor because, as I have already explained, information in
English language sources about Sri Lankan cricketers is limited. As and when one of our Sri Lankan colleagues has the time to check out this
725:
I would consider 10 or more first-class matches to be enough for the cricketer to have some secondary sources discussing about him. But this is from an Indian domestic cricket perspective. And again, I'm not suggesting we use this criteria for our project; although it would be good if we do, as it
561:
Assuming the player is still alive, I am not sure how the article came to the conclusion that he is a "former" cricketer; he might still be playing club-level matches. This is a BLP concern and I would rather have no article than have one which gives false/assumed information. How do you expect to
2224:
you do realize what you are doing constitutes as a personal attack, correct? There is nothing uncivil about me describing bludgeoning behavior when it is obviously occurring here. Also, my past history is completely irrelevant to this discussion and is just a failed attempt by you to slight me. I
1840:
That doesn't entirely answer my question but okay. As for a "reasonable and comparable bar for each article", that is what we have had for the last 13 years and it has done us no harm until now... but thanks for changing the subject anyway. Seems odd that anyone who is apparently "innocent" would
1498:
No, it's based on my reading of the GNG and other notability guidelines and, in particular, on the recent discussions surrounding NSPORTS that have taken place. My view is clear and is based on policy. It required no response from anyone and should have been accepted as my reasoned opinion rather
789:
Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never suggested we change the notability criteria. I simply responded to YOUR question on how I create my articles to which I answered. I make sure the cricketer meets GNG and then look up statistical sites for career information. 10 first-class matches is
1215:
as a player who seems to have just made it past the sport-specific notability guidelines where cricket is concerned. The lack of a verified first-name is realistically a non-issue given the points raised elsewhere (a pre-internet era player from a non-Anglophone country), particularly given that
2278:
we have consistenly held that even a single appearance atthe highest level of a sport is sufficient for notability , and that seems to be the case here. I have no personal interest in this sybject, but I do have an interest in there being some degree of consistency in our decisions. The correct
2139:
of
Cricket Archive or Cricinfo - the question of sources here is irrelevant). The fact that we are inconsistent here is partially a fault of the project and the fact that there are so many of us working on the project who work systematically in different ways. What we have learnt, especially in
1598:
single first-class cricketer regardless of the number of first-class appearances or the perceived "involvement" of the player is the only way to achieve full NPOV, and to suggest otherwise with no evidence of secondary sources which contradict the ones already quoted, is disruptive. As I stated
1519:
definition of this term. GNG is utterly undefinable nonsense and completely contradicts guidelines in other places in the encyclopedia. Imagine a day when every single cricket biography exists except for this, S. Perera, Tom
Cranston, and no others, simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT... this makes a
917:
It says he is a FORMER FIRST-CLASS CRICKETER and makes no comment about what he might be doing at his local club this afternoon. And his first-class career span is confirmed in the ESPNcricinfo source. As for adding "zero value to the encyclopedia", what is the purpose of an encyclopaedia??? To
684:
If you are unable to specify a criterion by which to work, may I please suggest you don't criticize our already existing criteria without providing a statistically consistent and workable solution? How many matches do you think an individual should have played before being "allowed an article"?
1216:
there are - at the risk of making an "otherstuff" argument - articles on baseballers who are known only by their surname and appear unlikely to have the first names fleshed out either. Concerns about the "value" being added or otherwise are also irrelevant as well as being highly subjective.
1777:- okay... looks like we're going to lose this article. This is beginning to make myself, Jack, and others who are genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia, incredibly angry that our work over the last 13 years is being ripped apart by those who are more interested in WP:IDON'TLIKEIT?
606:
be a greater chance of finding non-statistical sources which talk about the player's personal life in detail as he has played a higher number of matches. I wouldn't comment on the
Western Australia list as I am unfamiliar with how in-depth the coverage for domestic cricket in Australia is.
1146:
My point exactly. Shodhan is dead and therefore we use "was a". Amarnath is alive and we use "is a former". The burden is not on me to prove that
Dinaparna is still playing cricket, the burden is on you to prove that he is a former cricketer (as per the current wording in the article).
1252:
guidelines for eight years without anyone questioning why they should exist on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In those eight years, we have not altered our inclusion criteria (in such a way which would render these articles inadmissible). Is it really WP:CRIC which is the problem here?
1481:
itself begins by saying: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline (including NSPORTS)". This whole "deletionist" mentality is based on one thing and one thing only:
1593:
At the risk of sounding like a six-year-old, you started it. To offer up undefinable terms like "routine coverage" in the face of multiple citations of evidence based on completely independent sources is working against the encyclopedia in every way possible. Adding articles on
1783:
is, frankly, based on entirely spurious means. These problems could be fixed in the blink of an eye by a simple clean-up message. I personally feel this renders the AfD invalid - notwithstanding, once again (doesn't this seem a tad suspicious?) input by confirmed sockpuppets.
1532:
Please do not present a view of my position which is so prejudiced. My view is clear and is based on policy. It required no response from anyone and should have been accepted as my reasoned opinion rather than challenged because it is contrary to that held by some others.
955:
Dinaparna is a former first-class cricketer in the same way as Barack Obama is a former United States President. He did it in the past. "He might" by itself implies original research outside of third-party sources which we are prohibited from including - even if they
1876:
as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired last played the 1 match in 1992-1993 thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline and as Per
377:
where the people are likely to have coverage at a general notability guideline level, when we do not know the full name or any other details, we lack this coverage. No widespread coverage of the person with little details either, so we should delete this article.
2279:
interpretation of "presumed" in WP is the same as in the RW--it will be considered to be th ecase unless there is evidence to show otherwise. Presumed notability eansthe subject meeting the presumption isn otable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not.
1394:
Jack, sadly basic inclusion criteria has been rendered irrelevant by the apparent unacceptability of articles such as Cranston and Perera according to those who wish to debate it. This is no longer about basic inclusion criteria, this is about WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
870:
Words in your mouth? Please. You were the person who came up with the undefinable "handful of matches" nonsense. And the inclusion of the word "usually" in your last comment proves that even you don't believe in your woolly criteria. No further comment even
459:
where they belong – NOT in a bloody external link section as happens far too often. I hope the article looks better now. It has two reliable sources both cited inline and the text begins by saying that first name and date of birth are to be confirmed.
517:
I have sympathy with the nomination and the deletion vote above, but this player is from the pre-internet era, playing outside the English speaking world. I am not surprised at all that we have limited sources available. In this case I think the SNG;
1419:
If this had anything to do with logic, the basic logic that every single first-class cricketer is on the same level as the other and is therefore worthy of an article wouldn't have to be thrashed to death... yet nobody has ever wished to dispute
2076:
Why do we wish to have some articles and yet choose not to have others? To be painfully honest, since you are !voting delete on an article which you know perfectly well reaches guidelines, it's not really your job to be asking that question...
790:
usually (but not always) the number above which you can expect reliable secondary sources for the player. That is what I said above, not sure how I was contradicting myself. And yes, I no longer wish to take part in this discussion with you.
1983:
The whole problem, John, is putting the situation to people who profess themselves to be Knowledge (XXG) experts but who are unable to follow simple, clearly defined Knowledge (XXG) guidelines. This is nothing but disruptive to the project.
2089:
I have 84 redlinks on my first-class players links page for players who have played for Haryana. If you are willing to create articles on any of these, please do, otherwise deciding to complain when you decide WP:IDONTLIKEIT is hypocrisy.
1668:
Apparently the problem we have come up against in the past is "reliable sources", plural. Once again, this is easy to fix by anyone who knows the first thing about cricket, and to continuously add articles to AfD is, frankly, disruptive.
1097:
Neither Hugh Hefner nor Glenn Beck have been first-class cricketers in the past... Anyhoo, if you truly believe this man is still playing club-level matches, would you please include this in the article with necessary citations?
667:
I am not changing the subject. You asked what criteria I use while creating my articles, I just answered. I never said I want you to work to my criteria. If you have issues with any of my articles, feel free to take them to AFD.
1547:
Kindly explain which policy you are basing your view on. You say there is "nothing else to suggest any form of notability" but the man meets both NSPORTS and GNG as I have highlighted above. What other "policy" is there?
2068:
Do you have any evidence that Arun Sharma's profile had him listed as a Test cricketer? Secondary sources only please. As for why we have an article on Dinaparna based on secondary sources, that is precisely the answer.
1936:
Oh, and it's not one List A match, it's one first-class match, as shown in the source. Please ensure factual accuracy before you criticize presence of an article based on your own random WP:IDONTLIKEIT justifications.
1378:. I would remind you that WP:CRIN complies with WP:NFOOTY, WP:BASE and other NSPORTS criteria that a single top-level appearance confers notability so you will find you are very much on your own in terms of consensus.
742:
In which case, I am looking forward to the day when you decide to nominate every first-class cricketer with fewer than ten first-class appearances for deletion. Until then, I have no interest in attempting to justify
168:
1742:
There is probably a great deal of information we can add, however we need to have access to local sources, many of which will not be printed in English or available in such a widespread manner.
2023:
the statistical profiles found on these two websites is unacceptable. I mean there is no shred of evidence elsewhere that this Dinaparna guy actually existed and played one match of cricket.
943:, we may be able to establish his first name and perhaps his date of birth too. This does happen on WP. You will realise this when you have acquired more experience of how the site works.
1473:
notability? Anyone who has played in a senior match is notable and the same is true of anyone who has played in a senior football, baseball, other sports match too. You are going against
1758:, you have been around for 2 years, me and Jack have been around for 13 years. With the greatest of respect, I think we'll have a more rounded view of how procedures such as this work.
2209:... just saying. Also, am I right in saying you were once blocked for canvassing? Seems a tad hypocritical that you are criticizing me for one thing while you are guilty of another...
1290:
121:
2239:
I did not attack you in any way, I stated facts. Please don't criticize me if you are unwilling to accept your past behaviour... I have no interest in discussing this further.
250:
1881:
subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to.NSPORTS does not supersede GNG.
1163:
It seems odd that we are still arguing this point when it has been addressed in the article... if you wish to fix every other cricket biography in this way, please do so.
217:
567:
162:
2176:
2148:
as sources. Why didn't I do so for this article, or the thousands of others which also meet WP:CRIN? Force of habit. If that is wrong based on a practice I followed
1016:
Lastly, when does a player become "former"? When he hasn't played for 1 year, 5 years or 10 years? What timeframe do the "more experienced" people around here use?
1577:
An AfD is not the place for this discussion which serves only to disrupt the AfD and make it impossible for an admin to close it in any way other than no consensus
1915:
1878:
638:
I have found the sources to establish GNG, I use statistical databases like Cricinfo where his career summary can be fleshed out from using scorecards and such.
996:
If you disagree with this please do as I suggest below, add "is a former". Unless you object to this too? Because who knows, he might even appear next week...
697:
I thought this was an AFD where we discuss whether this article should be kept or not, and not an RFC where we try to come up with some inclusion criteria.
1077:
which begins with "Hugh Marston Hefner (April 9, 1926 – September 27, 2017) was an American businessman, magazine publisher and playboy." and then see
1045:
If I'm not wrong, "is a former cricketer" implies that the person is alive but has stopped playing, whereas "was a" implies that the person is dead.
564:"He scored 22 runs in the first innings in which he batted, and a single run in the second innings. He held two catches in the Singha first innings."
1370:
first-class cricketer. That is basic English usage and it is not something to be argued about here. As for your ten-match notability minimum, go to
634:
I don't use a number. Firstly I try to find non-statistical sources in which the player is not just a passing mention or part of routine coverage.
128:
1407:
That's right, Bobo. The arguments do not carry much logic and misuse the written criteria by trying to misrepresent what they actually do say.
1561:
you are working against the project based on completely undefinable criteria without being willing to offer alternative bright-line criteria
1515:"Routine coverage" is a woolly, pointless term which allows anyone who uses it to chicken out of an opinion based on the fact that there is
403:; and (2) it is not excluded under the What Knowledge (XXG) is not policy". The emphasis is mine. "Either...or..." means what it says and
1233:
357:
2107:
1961:
17:
1927:
1886:
94:
89:
455:, etc. I've just carried out what amounts to a complete rewrite including the predictable old chore of placing the sources into
1804:'s userpage? A page-long spiel about apparent sockpuppetry which does almost nothing to make anyone believe Rhadow is anything
98:
2012:
918:
provide encyclopaedic coverage of subjects like cricket which interest millions of people worldwide. Yes, that is subject to
324:
183:
399:
begins by saying: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) it meets either the general notability guideline below,
81:
1424:
logic in favour of their own arbitrary WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria. I have no doubt that even the people who mindlessly vote
1081:
which says "Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American talk show host, political commentator, and producer."
150:
2045:
members are so hell bent on retaining articles of these one match wonders when there are hundreds of cricketers such as
1245:
2309:
40:
1923:
1882:
1582:
1538:
1504:
1469:
You are a member of WP:CRIC so are you saying you don't agree with WP:CRIN which DOES not only "suggest" but actually
1456:
1134:
I would be surprised if Deepak Shodhan was still playing club-level cricket given as he has been dead for 11 years...
2256:
2230:
2192:
1712:
for lack of significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. Played one match, so it's a
200:
the person's first name and haven't since 2009. I understand WP:NODEADLINE. In this case it seems to mean NEVER.
382:
2251:
Good. You weren't adding anything constructive so there would be no benefit to further discussing your behavior.
562:
find "significant coverage in reliable sources" when the first name of the player is unknown? Information like
1483:
144:
726:
would save us from countless AFD debates about players with a single first-class appearance not meeting GNG.
291:
Yes, all cricket articles need now to contain a link to Cricinfo, but this is a gradual and methodical task.
1578:
1534:
1500:
1452:
919:
429:
1474:
1371:
1326:
140:
2305:
2290:
2260:
2252:
2246:
2234:
2226:
2216:
2196:
2188:
2159:
2129:
2097:
2084:
2063:
2034:
1991:
1974:
1944:
1931:
1907:
1890:
1848:
1835:
1815:
1790:
1765:
1749:
1729:
1725:
1700:
1676:
1635:
1620:
1606:
1586:
1572:
1555:
1542:
1527:
1508:
1493:
1460:
1435:
1414:
1402:
1385:
1336:
1320:
1300:
1277:
1260:
1224:
1206:
1170:
1158:
1141:
1129:
1105:
1092:
1068:
1056:
1040:
1027:
1003:
991:
967:
950:
933:
882:
784:
771:
754:
737:
720:
708:
692:
679:
662:
649:
629:
617:
600:
581:
551:
528:
501:
486:
467:
439:
395:
That is the same tired old argument we have seen over and over again and it is just as invalid as ever.
386:
367:
315:
298:
275:
242:
209:
63:
36:
2184:
85:
2106:
there. Anyway, I took the trouble of going through the web archives and found the evidence: see this
378:
2183:
is quite obviously failed here. I expect a certain admin participating here does not continue their
713:
It's not. It's a simple question asking how many cricket matches you think constitutes a "handful".
408:
404:
190:
1273:
1248:
have in common? Answer: They all survived absolutely fine as articles on Knowledge (XXG) which met
270:
237:
176:
1237:
420:
77:
69:
1865:
940:
360:, it is evident that all of these problems are either meaningless, inconsistent, or addressable.
2206:
1957:
1873:
1713:
519:
424:
412:
2003:
I refuse to accept that Cricinfo and CricketArchive player profiles can be considered reliable
2243:
2213:
2156:
2094:
2081:
2046:
2008:
1988:
1941:
1904:
1845:
1812:
1787:
1762:
1746:
1673:
1632:
1603:
1569:
1524:
1432:
1399:
1333:
1297:
1257:
1203:
1167:
1138:
1115:
1102:
1065:
1037:
1000:
964:
879:
781:
751:
717:
689:
659:
626:
597:
498:
483:
364:
312:
295:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
2304:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
2042:
1755:
1717:
1375:
1351:
1306:
923:
541:
537:
452:
416:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1970:
1831:
1721:
1520:
mockery of these guidelines, which are painfully easy to understand, implement, and follow.
1221:
977:
622:
How many is "a handful"? "A handful" is not a statistically workable inclusion criterion...
205:
2180:
2103:
1919:
1872:
with his contribution being insufficient and has retired now the subject technically meets
1861:
1478:
1359:
1355:
1310:
448:
396:
2124:
2058:
2029:
1153:
1124:
1087:
1051:
1022:
986:
796:
766:
732:
703:
674:
644:
612:
576:
156:
2073:
sources. If our secondary sources claimed otherwise, we would gladly admit our mistakes.
2049:
who have played over a hundred first-class matches, meet GNG and don't have an article.
1354:
territory and I would point out to you that wrongly accusing other editors of breaching
1695:
1683:
1615:
1550:
1488:
1409:
1380:
1315:
1269:
1111:
973:
945:
928:
546:
462:
434:
401:
or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right
254:
221:
2286:
1739:
and the fact that they are used by both casuals and professionals all over the world.
980:. As "he did it in the past", I'm sure you would call him a "former cricketer" too.
2240:
2221:
2210:
2153:
2091:
2078:
1985:
1938:
1901:
1842:
1823:
1809:
1784:
1759:
1743:
1689:
1670:
1629:
1600:
1566:
1521:
1429:
1428:
on these articles without knowing a thing about the subject would agree with this.
1396:
1330:
1294:
1254:
1241:
1200:
1164:
1135:
1099:
1062:
1034:
997:
961:
876:
778:
748:
714:
686:
656:
623:
594:
523:
495:
480:
361:
353:
309:
292:
53:
115:
1329:
argument - which this sockpuppet user does not even come close to referencing...
1966:
1827:
1801:
1217:
1074:
201:
972:
Obama!? How is that point valid in this discussion? Going by that argument, is
777:
please do so in the appropriate places. Here and now is not the time or place.
2119:
2053:
2024:
1347:
1268:
NO evedence of Notability on this article , it fail every criteria for WBIO :
1148:
1119:
1082:
1078:
1061:
Not exactly. Five minutes ago I was eating a chocolate bar. I haven't died...
1046:
1017:
981:
791:
761:
727:
698:
669:
639:
607:
571:
2205:
I suggest if you describe it as "bludgeoning", then that is not particularly
655:
more precise in defining your criteria for "article-hood" and "list-hood"...
447:. To be fair, it would help if articles like this were created according to
2015:
does not have an article on Knowledge (XXG), before doing some Googling to
1693:, are entirely reliable and are independent of each other and the subject.
939:
player in the Sri Lankan cricket media, which is extensive but written in
2281:
1613:
Answer the question, please, as it is relevant to this AfD. What policy?
479:
is proof that they have practically no idea what they are talking about.
1716:
situation as well. No material to build a functional bio article; see
2051:
PS: I'll be creating articles for both Sharma and Chadha later today.
2011:
listed him as a Test cricketer. I was surprised to find out that Mr.
432:. This nomination is yet another complete waste of everybody's time.
1499:
than challenged because it is contrary to that held by some others.
593:
articles? And would you please cite the criteria to which you work?
2187:
behavior. It is very unbecoming, especially considering their role.
1681:
And I would add that the two sources cited in Dinaparna's article,
570:) than its own article which adds zero value to the encyclopedia.
1199:
fact that this cricketer quite clearly meets WP:CRIN guidelines.
2298:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
407:
is one of the SSGs listed. Cricket notability is represented at
1965:
delete it? Would it make the encyclopedia more "encyclopedic"?
1914:
Being a very experienced user and admin if you disagree with a
2110:
of a 1988 Test match between India and the West Indies. The
1864:
and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played
760:
than 10 first-class appearances but all of them meet GNG.
415:
which is a summary of the full cricket specific guideline
1599:
below, sports guidelines are insultingly easy to follow.
976:
also a former cricketer? His last first-class match came
2016:
340:
One external link to either CA or CI (but not both): 35
111:
107:
103:
2140:
regard to the WP:ONESOURCE argument, is that it is of
1325:
Precisely why we need to be vigilant as per the whole
1305:
And his statement is ludicrous. Re notability, passes
175:
1234:
S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)
747:easy to understand and easy to implement criteria.
358:
S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer)
189:
1289:- User:Samat lib is a confirmed sockpuppet as per
1366:his first-class career in 1992/93 and so he is a
1073:Umm, you are again using the wrong argument. See
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2312:). No further edits should be made to this page.
2007:. Till last year, Cricinfo's player profile of
477:workable, consistent, NPOV alternative criteria
251:list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions
1841:have to defend themselves to such an extent.
346:Cricketers we don't know the first name of: 6
8:
1800:- hmm, has anyone ever actually checked out
249:Note: This debate has been included in the
218:list of Cricket-related deletion discussions
216:Note: This debate has been included in the
1477:, especially as your precious (and woolly)
2179:, nor does it necessitate an article. The
248:
215:
2041:What I also don't understand is why some
1900:full of disgusting levels of incivility.
522:should hold sway and suggest notability.
2017:discover that he is NOT a Test cricketer
1313:, article cites TWO reputable sources.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
2144:importance that we make sure we add
1628:for as long as we have been around.
2177:Existence does not prove notability
24:
1350:. Some of your comments are in
566:is better presented in a list (
327:with surnames beginning with A:
368:23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
316:23:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
299:22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
276:21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
243:21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
210:21:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
1:
2102:I'm not surprised you didn't
2181:general notability guideline
2152:years ago, then I am sorry.
1246:R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer)
834:13:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
2291:01:58, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
2261:17:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2247:17:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2235:17:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2217:17:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2197:16:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2160:18:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2135:only one external link (to
2130:18:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2098:15:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2085:15:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2064:15:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
2035:15:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1992:13:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1975:12:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1945:13:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1932:10:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
1922:to try to change consensus.
1908:13:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1891:11:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1849:13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1836:11:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1816:11:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1791:10:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1766:10:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1750:10:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1730:05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1701:21:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1677:21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1636:11:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1621:22:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1607:22:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1587:22:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1573:22:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1556:22:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1543:21:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1528:21:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1509:21:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1494:21:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1461:19:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1436:13:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1415:13:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1403:13:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1386:13:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1337:12:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1321:12:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1301:12:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1278:12:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1261:12:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1225:11:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1207:13:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
1171:13:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1159:13:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1142:13:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1130:13:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1106:12:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1093:12:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1069:12:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1057:12:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1041:12:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1028:12:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
1004:12:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
992:12:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
968:11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
951:11:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
934:11:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
883:13:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
785:13:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
772:13:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
755:13:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
738:13:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
721:13:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
709:13:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
693:13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
680:13:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
663:13:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
650:12:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
630:12:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
618:12:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
601:12:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
582:11:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
552:09:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
529:09:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
502:11:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
487:11:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
468:09:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
440:09:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
387:05:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
64:09:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
2329:
1374:and propose a revision of
337:Link to both CA and CI: 18
2225:suggest you knock it off.
352:Once again, just as with
2301:Please do not modify it.
2114:in the Indian lineup is
32:Please do not modify it.
1918:you will have to go to
544:would ensure deletion.
1924:Pharaoh of the Wizards
1883:Pharaoh of the Wizards
1358:is itself a breach of
1033:have just questioned.
540:. If he did not, then
536:per the above. Meets
325:Sri Lankan cricketers
1916:community discussion
343:No external links: 2
1663:the place to do it.
926:so he is included.
922:and this man meets
1250:easy to understand
2052:
1870:first class Match
1579:Blue Square Thing
1535:Blue Square Thing
1501:Blue Square Thing
1453:Blue Square Thing
1116:Mohinder Amarnath
379:John Pack Lambert
323:- Statistics for
278:
267:
245:
234:
2320:
2303:
2253:TheGracefulSlick
2227:TheGracefulSlick
2189:TheGracefulSlick
2127:
2122:
2061:
2056:
2050:
2032:
2027:
1808:a sockpuppet...
1156:
1151:
1127:
1122:
1090:
1085:
1054:
1049:
1025:
1020:
989:
984:
875:to be made now.
799:
794:
769:
764:
735:
730:
706:
701:
677:
672:
647:
642:
615:
610:
579:
574:
526:
457:inline citations
273:
268:
261:
240:
235:
228:
194:
193:
179:
131:
119:
101:
61:
57:
34:
2328:
2327:
2323:
2322:
2321:
2319:
2318:
2317:
2316:
2310:deletion review
2299:
2125:
2120:
2059:
2054:
2030:
2025:
1879:this discussion
1754:As for quoting
1222:Schreit mich an
1154:
1149:
1125:
1120:
1088:
1083:
1052:
1047:
1023:
1018:
987:
982:
797:
792:
767:
762:
733:
728:
704:
699:
675:
670:
645:
640:
613:
608:
577:
572:
524:
445:Further comment
271:
260:
255:
238:
227:
222:
136:
127:
92:
76:
73:
59:
55:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
2326:
2324:
2315:
2314:
2294:
2293:
2272:
2271:
2270:
2269:
2268:
2267:
2266:
2265:
2264:
2263:
2200:
2199:
2169:
2168:
2167:
2166:
2165:
2164:
2163:
2162:
2087:
2074:
2047:this gentleman
2038:
2037:
1997:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1978:
1977:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1894:
1893:
1854:
1853:
1852:
1851:
1819:
1818:
1794:
1793:
1779:
1778:
1771:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1752:
1740:
1733:
1732:
1706:
1705:
1704:
1703:
1684:CricketArchive
1665:
1664:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1647:
1646:
1645:
1644:
1643:
1642:
1641:
1640:
1639:
1638:
1611:
1610:
1609:
1558:
1513:
1512:
1511:
1484:WP:IDONTLIKEIT
1464:
1463:
1445:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1440:
1439:
1438:
1389:
1388:
1344:
1343:
1342:
1341:
1340:
1339:
1303:
1281:
1280:
1263:
1227:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1178:
1177:
1176:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1112:Deepak Shodhan
1014:
1010:
1009:
1008:
1007:
1006:
974:Mohammed Siraj
936:
915:
914:
913:
912:
911:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
904:
903:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
896:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
890:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
810:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
585:
584:
555:
554:
531:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
504:
489:
390:
389:
350:
349:
348:
347:
344:
341:
338:
335:
329:
328:
318:
302:
301:
288:
287:
280:
279:
256:
246:
223:
197:
196:
133:
72:
67:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2325:
2313:
2311:
2307:
2302:
2296:
2295:
2292:
2288:
2284:
2283:
2277:
2274:
2273:
2262:
2258:
2254:
2250:
2249:
2248:
2245:
2242:
2238:
2237:
2236:
2232:
2228:
2223:
2220:
2219:
2218:
2215:
2212:
2208:
2204:
2203:
2202:
2201:
2198:
2194:
2190:
2186:
2182:
2178:
2174:
2171:
2170:
2161:
2158:
2155:
2151:
2147:
2143:
2138:
2133:
2132:
2131:
2128:
2123:
2117:
2113:
2112:sixth batsman
2109:
2105:
2101:
2100:
2099:
2096:
2093:
2088:
2086:
2083:
2080:
2075:
2072:
2067:
2066:
2065:
2062:
2057:
2048:
2044:
2040:
2039:
2036:
2033:
2028:
2022:
2018:
2014:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1999:
1998:
1993:
1990:
1987:
1982:
1981:
1980:
1979:
1976:
1972:
1968:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1952:
1951:
1946:
1943:
1940:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1929:
1925:
1921:
1917:
1913:
1909:
1906:
1903:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1895:
1892:
1888:
1884:
1880:
1875:
1871:
1869:
1863:
1859:
1856:
1855:
1850:
1847:
1844:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1833:
1829:
1825:
1821:
1820:
1817:
1814:
1811:
1807:
1803:
1799:
1796:
1795:
1792:
1789:
1786:
1781:
1780:
1776:
1773:
1772:
1767:
1764:
1761:
1757:
1753:
1751:
1748:
1745:
1741:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1731:
1727:
1723:
1719:
1715:
1711:
1708:
1707:
1702:
1699:
1697:
1692:
1691:
1686:
1685:
1680:
1679:
1678:
1675:
1672:
1667:
1666:
1662:
1658:
1655:
1654:
1637:
1634:
1631:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1623:
1622:
1619:
1617:
1612:
1608:
1605:
1602:
1597:
1592:
1591:
1590:
1589:
1588:
1584:
1580:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1571:
1568:
1564:
1559:
1557:
1554:
1552:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1526:
1523:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1497:
1496:
1495:
1492:
1490:
1485:
1480:
1476:
1472:
1468:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1462:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1447:
1446:
1437:
1434:
1431:
1427:
1423:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1413:
1411:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1401:
1398:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1390:
1387:
1384:
1382:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1361:
1357:
1353:
1349:
1346:
1345:
1338:
1335:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1323:
1322:
1319:
1317:
1312:
1308:
1304:
1302:
1299:
1296:
1292:
1288:
1285:
1284:
1283:
1282:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1264:
1262:
1259:
1256:
1251:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1228:
1226:
1223:
1219:
1214:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1205:
1202:
1172:
1169:
1166:
1162:
1161:
1160:
1157:
1152:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1132:
1131:
1128:
1123:
1117:
1113:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1091:
1086:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1058:
1055:
1050:
1044:
1043:
1042:
1039:
1036:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1026:
1021:
1015:
1011:
1005:
1002:
999:
995:
994:
993:
990:
985:
979:
975:
971:
970:
969:
966:
963:
959:
954:
953:
952:
949:
947:
942:
937:
935:
932:
930:
925:
921:
920:WP:Notability
916:
884:
881:
878:
874:
869:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
861:
860:
859:
858:
857:
856:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
839:
838:
837:
836:
835:
800:
795:
788:
787:
786:
783:
780:
775:
774:
773:
770:
765:
758:
757:
756:
753:
750:
746:
741:
740:
739:
736:
731:
724:
723:
722:
719:
716:
712:
711:
710:
707:
702:
696:
695:
694:
691:
688:
683:
682:
681:
678:
673:
666:
665:
664:
661:
658:
653:
652:
651:
648:
643:
637:
633:
632:
631:
628:
625:
621:
620:
619:
616:
611:
604:
603:
602:
599:
596:
591:
590:
589:
588:
587:
586:
583:
580:
575:
569:
568:like this one
565:
560:
557:
556:
553:
550:
548:
543:
539:
535:
532:
530:
527:
521:
516:
513:
512:
503:
500:
497:
493:
490:
488:
485:
482:
478:
474:
471:
470:
469:
466:
464:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
442:
441:
438:
436:
431:
430:WP:NODEADLINE
426:
422:
418:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
393:
392:
391:
388:
384:
380:
375:
372:
371:
370:
369:
366:
363:
359:
355:
345:
342:
339:
336:
333:
332:
331:
330:
326:
322:
319:
317:
314:
311:
307:
304:
303:
300:
297:
294:
290:
289:
285:
282:
281:
277:
274:
269:
266:
265:
259:
252:
247:
244:
241:
236:
233:
232:
226:
219:
214:
213:
212:
211:
207:
203:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
126:
123:
117:
113:
109:
105:
100:
96:
91:
87:
83:
79:
75:
74:
71:
68:
66:
65:
62:
58:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
2300:
2297:
2280:
2275:
2172:
2149:
2145:
2141:
2136:
2115:
2111:
2070:
2020:
2005:on their own
2004:
2000:
1962:WP:Sri Lanka
1953:
1867:
1857:
1805:
1797:
1774:
1709:
1694:
1690:ESPNcricinfo
1688:
1682:
1660:
1656:
1614:
1595:
1565:disruptive.
1562:
1549:
1516:
1487:
1475:WP:CONSENSUS
1470:
1448:
1425:
1421:
1408:
1379:
1367:
1363:
1327:WP:ONESOURCE
1314:
1286:
1265:
1249:
1242:Tom Cranston
1238:L. Dinaparna
1229:
1212:
1197:
978:one week ago
957:
944:
927:
872:
833:
744:
635:
563:
558:
545:
533:
514:
491:
476:
472:
461:
456:
444:
433:
400:
373:
354:Tom Cranston
351:
320:
305:
283:
263:
262:
257:
230:
229:
224:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
124:
78:L. Dinaparna
70:L. Dinaparna
54:
50:no consensus
49:
47:
31:
28:
2116:Arun Sharma
2009:Arun Sharma
1722:K.e.coffman
1657:Strong keep
1075:Hugh Hefner
534:Strong keep
163:free images
2185:bludeoning
1232:- What do
1079:Glenn Beck
409:WP:NSPORTS
405:WP:NSPORTS
2306:talk page
2142:paramount
2108:scorecard
2071:Secondary
1956:. Passes
1364:and ended
1270:Samat lib
1213:Weak keep
941:Sinhalese
745:painfully
515:Weak keep
421:WP:NFOOTY
334:Total: 56
37:talk page
2308:or in a
2207:WP:CIVIL
1958:WP:NCRIC
1874:WP:NCRIC
1714:WP:BIO1E
520:WP:NCRIC
425:WP:NBASE
413:WP:NCRIC
264:assiveYR
231:assiveYR
122:View log
39:or in a
2222:Bobo192
2043:WP:CRIC
2001:Comment
1866:just 1
1798:Comment
1775:Comment
1756:WP:WHYN
1718:WP:WHYN
1376:WP:CRIN
1372:WT:CRIC
1352:WP:AADD
1307:WP:CRIN
1230:Comment
960:exist.
924:WP:CRIN
542:WP:CRIC
538:WP:CRIN
525:Harrias
492:Comment
473:Comment
453:WP:CITE
419:. Like
417:WP:CRIN
321:Comment
306:Comment
284:Comment
169:WP refs
157:scholar
95:protect
90:history
2173:Delete
2137:either
2104:WP:AGF
2013:Sharma
1967:Johnlp
1920:WP:RFC
1868:List A
1862:WP:GNG
1860:Fails
1858:Delete
1828:Rhadow
1802:Rhadow
1710:Delete
1479:WP:GNG
1471:define
1449:Delete
1426:delete
1368:former
1360:WP:AGF
1356:WP:BLP
1311:WP:BIO
1293:page.
1266:Delete
1244:, and
1218:BigHaz
559:Delete
449:WP:MOS
397:WP:GNG
374:Delete
202:Rhadow
141:Google
99:delete
2287:talk
2150:eight
1822:Yes,
1596:every
1348:Dee03
1309:. Re
873:needs
636:After
184:JSTOR
145:books
129:Stats
116:views
108:watch
104:links
60:Train
16:<
2276:Keep
2257:talk
2241:Bobo
2231:talk
2211:Bobo
2193:talk
2154:Bobo
2146:both
2092:Bobo
2079:Bobo
2021:only
1986:Bobo
1971:talk
1954:Keep
1939:Bobo
1928:talk
1902:Bobo
1887:talk
1843:Bobo
1832:talk
1824:Bobo
1810:Bobo
1785:Bobo
1760:Bobo
1744:Bobo
1726:talk
1696:Jack
1687:and
1671:Bobo
1630:Bobo
1616:Jack
1601:Bobo
1583:talk
1567:Bobo
1551:Jack
1539:talk
1522:Bobo
1517:zero
1505:talk
1489:Jack
1457:talk
1430:Bobo
1422:this
1410:Jack
1397:Bobo
1381:Jack
1331:Bobo
1316:Jack
1295:Bobo
1291:this
1287:Note
1274:talk
1255:Bobo
1201:Bobo
1165:Bobo
1136:Bobo
1114:and
1110:See
1100:Bobo
1063:Bobo
1035:Bobo
998:Bobo
962:Bobo
946:Jack
929:Jack
877:Bobo
779:Bobo
749:Bobo
715:Bobo
687:Bobo
657:Bobo
624:Bobo
595:Bobo
547:Jack
496:Bobo
481:Bobo
463:Jack
435:Jack
383:talk
362:Bobo
356:and
310:Bobo
293:Bobo
206:talk
177:FENS
151:news
112:logs
86:talk
82:edit
2282:DGG
2121:Dee
2055:Dee
2026:Dee
1806:but
1661:not
1150:Dee
1121:Dee
1084:Dee
1048:Dee
1019:Dee
983:Dee
958:did
793:Dee
763:Dee
729:Dee
700:Dee
671:Dee
641:Dee
609:Dee
573:Dee
411:by
191:TWL
120:– (
2289:)
2259:)
2233:)
2195:)
2175:-
2126:03
2060:03
2031:03
1973:)
1930:)
1889:)
1834:)
1728:)
1720:.
1698:|
1618:|
1585:)
1563:is
1553:|
1541:)
1507:)
1491:|
1486:.
1459:)
1412:|
1383:|
1318:|
1276:)
1240:,
1236:,
1220:-
1155:03
1126:03
1118:.
1089:03
1053:03
1024:03
988:03
948:|
931:|
798:03
768:03
734:03
705:03
676:03
646:03
614:03
578:03
549:|
465:|
451:,
437:|
423:,
385:)
253:.
220:.
208:)
171:)
114:|
110:|
106:|
102:|
97:|
93:|
88:|
84:|
52:.
2285:(
2255:(
2244:.
2229:(
2214:.
2191:(
2157:.
2095:.
2082:.
1989:.
1969:(
1942:.
1926:(
1905:.
1885:(
1846:.
1830:(
1813:.
1788:.
1763:.
1747:.
1724:(
1674:.
1633:.
1604:.
1581:(
1570:.
1537:(
1525:.
1503:(
1455:(
1433:.
1400:.
1334:.
1298:.
1272:(
1258:.
1204:.
1168:.
1139:.
1103:.
1066:.
1038:.
1001:.
965:.
880:.
782:.
752:.
718:.
690:.
660:.
627:.
598:.
499:.
484:.
381:(
365:.
313:.
296:.
272:♠
258:M
239:♠
225:M
204:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
125:·
118:)
80:(
56:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.