The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. The arguments made here go beyond this individual page, a proposal was made here to re-evaluate the criteria of WP:CRIN. I would recommend the conversation be added WP:RfC for broader input. J04n(talk page) 16:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh de Zoysa

[edit]
Dinesh de Zoysa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject meets WP:NCRIC, but fails WP:BLP1E and no general press coverage to meet WP:GNG. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers Rhadow (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Reyk YO! 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Reyk YO! 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it and we have to put a stop to such nominations. This article easily passes WP:CRIN and for time being its fine. I don't think we need any lists as per above mentioned discussion or need to merge to any list. If you think there is any problem with WP:CRIN then start a discussion and build a consensus first. Greenbörg (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

There is a discussion going on about WP:CRIN which is here. Greenbörg (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this were any other project, footy, American football, baseball, yadda yadda, these debates wouldn't even be happening, and the nominators would probably be being castigated for disrupting the project. Likely those who did so twice or more would be indef-blocked for disruption... As I've said below, we either have to choose one rule and stick to it, completely change the rule we've currently got working, which has served us fine for the last 13 years, or get the people (who generally speaking know nothing about cricket or Wikipedia) who nominate articles or vote delete, to come up with new, universally applicable, neutral, brightline criteria. I don't see that happening, somehow. We're going to keep being bombarded with these debates and we're going to have to accept them because of the IDONTLIKEIT brigade. Bobo. 17:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a related note, does anyone know if the Saravanamuttu Trophy and its descendants are (or were) fully professional affairs? Or have they ended up involving a number of enthusiastic amateurs? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? This shows that some games were labelled first class, some were not. The cricketers who took part in the first-class games are notable. The ones who didn't, were not. If we're working to any criteria other than this then we are working against the aims of a comprehensively compiled encyclopedia. As I've said before, we either choose one rule and stick to it, or continue having these arguments based on completely inapplicable, contradictory, nonsense criteria. Bobo. 16:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could matter, yes. In general there's often a subtle difference between the ways that notability might be judged for amateurs versus professionals. In FOOTY, for example, I think a player appearing in a league which is not fully professional would rarely be judged as notable - certainly in the modern game. I'd be interested in whether this might be worth considering in cricket terms. If not all match in the competition was FC then, to be honest, I'd be more likely to move towards delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not when we have brightline criteria. First-class/List A = notable. Not first-class/List A = not notable. Why are people refusing to see this as an easy to understand guideline - and the only way by which we can neturally judge biographical articles? How many more times will articles like this, which even the people who send these articles for deletion know meet guidelines, have to go for deletion before the people who care about the cricket Wikiproject simply give up? Bobo. 17:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As has been repeatedly stated on other AfD's, anyone who knows anything about cricket knows when and where to add a second from. Bobo. 03:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONESOURCE complaint has now been dealt with, rendering John Pack Lambert's complaint obsolete, as this was his only logical complaint about this article I suggest it is passed over. It is not true that this article "clearly does not" meet notability criteria, as has been suggested infinitely through other AfD debates. May I suggest in the future that instead of wasting a delete !vote on the argument of WP:ONESOURCE, this is simply brought to the attention of someone else and the second source is added when necessary? Bobo. 03:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additonally, NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines says meeting GNG is a requirement and biographies must meet BLP standards, which this does not. The article was created in 2009, so more than enough time has passed to add reliable sources and improve the article. WP:CRIN does not supercede NSPORTS, GNG, and BLP. Wikipedia is not a website for indiscriminate collections of information. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jack, sadly, judging by the deletionist cabal's recent exuberant joy at the ability to criticize subjects of which they know nothing, and their ability to widely apply the accepted guideline of WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT, sadly this issue will not be dropped nor will these articles be saved. We will end up yawning our way through another three DRVs and get absolutely nowhere, and our cricket project, thanks to a group of editors who have no interest in working to patronizingly easy to understand guidelines, and contradictory inclusion criteria, will continue to be fully discredited. Our project is beyond saving.
With all that said, WP:ONESOURCE has now been addressed, rendering these complaints obsolete. Sadly the comments about whether GNG and SNG work side-by-side will never be solved as the two direct "rules" pages distinctly contradict each other, each rendering the other worthless. Bobo. 13:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONESOURCE criterion has now been comprehensively dealt with and as such the votes which centre around this point can be fairly disregarded. Bobo. 14:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the deletionist cabal get their way dangerously often, proving a net drain to the encyclopedia, as well as violating the most basic Wikipeida guideline we learn on the first day we come to this site, NPOV. In any case, comparing this article with a randomly cobbled together list of articles is deceptive. Bobo. 22:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As stated elsewhere, this article is not "all stats". An "all stats" article would actually have a table of stats... which this one doesn't. As for "not having enough material to write about him", this is clearly untrue and simply requires more research into other areas which we are as yet unable to find. Bobo. 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, per DGG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed 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 non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.
Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "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 WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | talk page 15:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
More