238:. This would render this page unnecessary. "Lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers" is a nonsense, inapplicable "guideline" which only suits those who have cried "I don't like the fact that these articles which meet criteria should be allowed on Knowledge (XXG). I would accept an article of List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers, similar to our other lists, if only the currently fervent deletionist cabal understands that the only way to achieve true NPOV is to apply the same guideline everywhere across every cricket article. Jack, how would you feel about
319:
bluelinked in addition to being listed. This is the solution I've been suggesting for quite some time now, and it's interesting to see Bobo now on board with it when just a few weeks ago he and friends were bombarding me with abusive commentary for recommending the exact same thing. Needless to say, my delete vote here should not be construed as somehow support for keeping the individual microstubs as separate articles.
724:
686:, an article does not have to meet any of its guidelines to be deleted. Articles do get deleted because they are unfit for purpose, like this one is. You should be aware that there is history too with the creator of the article and his motives are highly questionable, the talk page message being a case in point.
302:
would make more sense and completely negate the need for this article. Every
English county has an article such as this and it would make sense for other teams in other countries to also have these teams added too. The only question I would have regarding "per team" lists is where to "draw the line".
698:
I would have been willing to do so in the olden days Jack. In a perfect world every regular first-class side would have a list of first-class players by team. But not while our project is under fire from those who refuse to work to years' worth of guidelines (which have been constantly refined on
719:
Well, actually, Bobo, I've got a comprehensive list of Sri Lankan first-class players (no LA or T20 though) in an XL. It's not yet in a format that could be applied here because it's players per season and so someone like the esteemed Murali recurs twenty-odd times. I might be prepared to do
318:
per TNT. A better way to do this is to produce lists of players by club, rather than an arbitrary number of appearances. The non-notable one-game players where we only know statistics and frequently not even the full name would be listed there, and of course actually notable players would be
568:. However, each player is notable (sadly) and LISTN says that the list can exist since the group by selection is notable. Assuming the citations come from a reliable source, any !vote to delete is IDONTLIKEIT. I'm all for merging this content into
172:
463:
262:
208:
819:. If they aren't notable, they shouldn't be on any article. Seems to me some editors are trying to get non-notable individuals onto Knowledge (XXG) through the back door or are too lazy to create a comprehensive
98:
93:
624:
In which case, your rationale is unsound. Keep the article on randomly hashed-together single appearance players even though you know every single one is worthy of an article? This is a contradiction. This
102:
629:
an article based on cobbled-together nonsense and I am willing to bet that not a single person is willing to complete the list or maintain it beyond its current state. But I'm willing to be proven wrong.
85:
166:
600:
You are missing the point that, although this list may comply with LISTN, it is NO USE to anyone because of its limited scope. It therefore adds no value and the better approach by far is
399:
488:
be independently verified, nor can anybody be certain that it will ever be complete without checking and validating dozens of different links whose content may be changed at any time.
379:
125:
132:
439:
740:
419:
666:
This makes more sense than any other solution and is, I think, the one we are gradually gravitating towards although it will require someone to do the legwork.
187:
154:
831:
798:
782:
750:
735:
714:
693:
673:
661:
637:
619:
591:
544:
524:
495:
475:
451:
431:
411:
391:
370:
334:
310:
288:
274:
249:
225:
67:
347:
individual articles for all first-class cricketers, and have believed so from moment one. What have I ever claimed otherwise? I believe that the
148:
144:
89:
194:
612:
above. Apart from anything else, the "how to use instructions" on the talk page reveal a mischievous intent which breaches WP:MERGE.
17:
81:
73:
824:
507:. One-appearance players? Two-appearance players? How many of these lists could there be? It's nonsensical. There should be a
679:
601:
508:
299:
235:
160:
298:- forgive me for repeating what I wrote above but I guess I need to write it as a comment for it to "count" (so to speak),
820:
816:
53:
466:. A useless, uninteresting, list of non notable cricketers and using sources that require a subscription to be verified.
868:
40:
682:
at the present time and so this pointless exercise with its limited scope should be deleted and not moved. As for
511:
which would make this and any other lists redundant. And because all of the cricketers on such a list would pass
812:
279:
It makes no sense at all to keep this article which is effectively just as useless as the previous one deleted.
654:
584:
864:
447:
427:
407:
387:
36:
561:
537:
first-class name rather than the odd bluelink which is what happens on a lot of other "players lists".
343:"On board with it"? With what? I believe that there should be players lists for all first-class sides
828:
648:
578:
180:
843:
So do you think a single-appearance player with a scorecard and no press is notable according to
848:
844:
766:
557:
747:
711:
670:
634:
541:
492:
367:
363:
first-class players bluelinked regardless of whether someone happens to have heard of them...
307:
246:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
863:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
565:
512:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
778:
703:
terms), Sadly this would change the rationales to, "Why does this player qualify for a list
520:
471:
443:
423:
403:
383:
284:
270:
683:
576:
so I reserve the right to change my position if the present sourcing really isn't tenable.
840:
793:
730:
688:
614:
327:
220:
213:
573:
741:
List of Sri Lankan cricketers who debuted during the 1999-2000 Premier Trophy season
744:
708:
667:
631:
605:
538:
489:
364:
304:
243:
57:
119:
720:
something with it in the near future. Watch the space, I suppose, or the redlink
788:
774:
609:
516:
467:
464:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers
280:
266:
263:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers
209:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers
211:
which was created by the same editor. Pointless exercise which adds no value.
484:
Ajf773, I respect you but that is not the issue. The issue is that this list
320:
815:. If the players are notable create their articles and include them on
265:. It would only make sense that I am in favor of keeping this article.
261:
I am the "same editor" who proposed this article and the now deleted
857:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
765:
A list of lesser known cricketers would most certainly fail
773:
to the public. It's a terrible concept for a list article.
646:. AfD isn't the place for a discussion to move an article.
234:
If there is an article which needs creating, it would be
115:
111:
107:
791:, well said. That is a very good point. All the best.
179:
400:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
193:
380:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
871:). No further edits should be made to this page.
572:or some such. Bobo192 makes a valid point about
440:list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions
351:neutral way of treating articles like this is
82:Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players
74:Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players
769:as there is no reasonable criteria for being
8:
438:Note: This debate has been included in the
420:list of Cricket-related deletion discussions
418:Note: This debate has been included in the
398:Note: This debate has been included in the
378:Note: This debate has been included in the
564:. I hate the subject and normally I'd cite
642:I'm perfectly fine seeing this content at
437:
417:
397:
377:
728:. That stuff from power-enwiki is great.
707:an article? Which is obvious nonsense...
743:is a teensy bit unwieldy for my liking.
680:List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers
644:List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers
602:List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers
509:List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers
300:List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers
240:List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers
236:List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers
52:. No prejudice against the creation of
515:, they can be presumed to be notable.
678:Exactly, no one is willing to create
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
821:List of Panadura Sports Club players
817:List of Panadura Sports Club players
721:
54:List of Panadura Sports Club players
24:
722:
359:first-class teams in lists, and
570:List of lesser-known cricketers
1:
218:13:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
832:19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
799:21:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
783:20:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
751:16:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
736:15:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
715:15:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
694:15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
674:15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
662:15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
638:15:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
620:12:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
592:06:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
545:23:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
525:23:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
496:22:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
476:20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
452:17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
432:17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
412:17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
392:17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
371:16:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
335:16:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
311:16:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
289:20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
275:14:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
250:13:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
226:13:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
68:07:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
462:. An almost carbon copy of
888:
242:superseding this article?
860:Please do not modify it.
355:first-class players for
32:Please do not modify it.
771:more or less known
454:
434:
414:
394:
879:
862:
727:
726:
725:
660:
657:
651:
590:
587:
581:
325:
198:
197:
183:
135:
123:
105:
65:
61:
34:
887:
886:
882:
881:
880:
878:
877:
876:
875:
869:deletion review
858:
813:WP:WRITEITFIRST
723:
655:
649:
647:
604:as proposed by
585:
579:
577:
331:
321:
140:
131:
96:
80:
77:
63:
59:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
885:
883:
874:
873:
853:
852:
834:
806:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
756:
755:
754:
753:
676:
650:Chris Troutman
622:
595:
594:
580:Chris Troutman
550:
549:
548:
547:
528:
527:
501:
500:
499:
498:
479:
478:
456:
455:
435:
415:
395:
375:
374:
373:
338:
337:
329:
313:
293:
292:
291:
255:
254:
253:
252:
229:
228:
201:
200:
137:
76:
71:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
884:
872:
870:
866:
861:
855:
854:
850:
846:
842:
838:
835:
833:
830:
826:
822:
818:
814:
811:
808:
807:
800:
797:
795:
790:
786:
785:
784:
780:
776:
772:
768:
764:
752:
749:
746:
742:
739:
738:
737:
734:
732:
718:
717:
716:
713:
710:
706:
702:
697:
696:
695:
692:
690:
685:
681:
677:
675:
672:
669:
665:
664:
663:
658:
652:
645:
641:
640:
639:
636:
633:
628:
623:
621:
618:
616:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
596:
593:
588:
582:
575:
571:
567:
563:
559:
555:
552:
551:
546:
543:
540:
536:
532:
531:
530:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
502:
497:
494:
491:
487:
483:
482:
481:
480:
477:
473:
469:
465:
461:
460:Strong delete
458:
457:
453:
449:
445:
441:
436:
433:
429:
425:
421:
416:
413:
409:
405:
401:
396:
393:
389:
385:
381:
376:
372:
369:
366:
362:
358:
354:
350:
346:
342:
341:
340:
339:
336:
333:
332:
326:
324:
317:
314:
312:
309:
306:
301:
297:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
277:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
257:
256:
251:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
232:
231:
230:
227:
224:
222:
217:
215:
210:
206:
203:
202:
196:
192:
189:
186:
182:
178:
174:
171:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
142:Find sources:
138:
134:
130:
127:
121:
117:
113:
109:
104:
100:
95:
91:
87:
83:
79:
78:
75:
72:
70:
69:
66:
62:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
859:
856:
836:
809:
792:
770:
729:
704:
700:
687:
643:
626:
613:
569:
553:
534:
504:
485:
459:
360:
356:
352:
348:
344:
328:
322:
315:
295:
258:
239:
219:
212:
204:
190:
184:
176:
169:
163:
157:
151:
141:
128:
58:
49:
47:
31:
28:
562:WP:NCRICKET
533:Containing
444:Lepricavark
424:Lepricavark
404:Lepricavark
384:Lepricavark
167:free images
841:Obi2canibe
825:Obi2canibe
865:talk page
847:or fails
37:talk page
867:or in a
849:WP:BLP1E
845:WP:NCRIC
837:Question
767:WP:LISTN
558:WP:LISTN
126:View log
39:or in a
566:WP:WTAF
513:WP:CRIN
296:Comment
173:WP refs
161:scholar
99:protect
94:history
810:Delete
789:Ajf773
775:Ajf773
684:WP:DEL
610:Johnlp
517:Johnlp
505:Delete
486:cannot
468:Ajf773
316:Delete
281:Ajf773
267:Rhadow
205:Delete
145:Google
103:delete
50:delete
829:talk)
787:Yes,
701:their
535:every
188:JSTOR
149:books
133:Stats
120:views
112:watch
108:links
64:Train
16:<
794:Jack
779:talk
745:Bobo
731:Jack
709:Bobo
689:Jack
668:Bobo
656:talk
632:Bobo
615:Jack
608:and
606:Bobo
586:talk
574:WP:V
560:and
556:per
554:Keep
539:Bobo
521:talk
490:Bobo
472:talk
448:talk
428:talk
408:talk
388:talk
365:Bobo
349:only
323:Reyk
305:Bobo
285:talk
271:talk
259:Keep
244:Bobo
221:Jack
214:Jack
207:per
181:FENS
155:news
116:logs
90:talk
86:edit
839:to
823:.--
705:and
361:all
357:all
353:all
345:and
330:YO!
195:TWL
124:– (
796:|
781:)
733:|
691:|
627:is
617:|
523:)
474:)
450:)
442:.
430:)
422:.
410:)
402:.
390:)
382:.
287:)
273:)
223:|
216:|
175:)
118:|
114:|
110:|
106:|
101:|
97:|
92:|
88:|
56:.
851:?
827:(
777:(
748:.
712:.
671:.
659:)
653:(
635:.
589:)
583:(
542:.
519:(
493:.
470:(
446:(
426:(
406:(
386:(
368:.
308:.
283:(
269:(
247:.
199:)
191:·
185:·
177:·
170:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
147:(
139:(
136:)
129:·
122:)
84:(
60:A
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.