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 Snow Keep. (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 23:39, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer) (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)

Delete Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - two first class appearances in this case versus one in the other case, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - There are four more similar articles with AfD at the moment S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer) {closed as delete), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor (Delhi cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farook (Saurashtra cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer). SageGreenRider (talk) 20:15, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per WP:CRIN and per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Perera_(Old_Cambrians_cricketer). This needs proper discussion at the relevant WP project, not in this piecemeal way. Johnlp (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per John's rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The subject of the article played first-class cricket for Madhya Pradesh, which means at one point he was considered one of the eleven best players in a state with tens of millions of people (where cricket is the most popular sport). Notability does not depend on the availability of biographical details – for example, there are many Olympic medalists whose full names are unknown (e.g. A. Haslam). IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Notability is embuded not by some arbitrary skill ranking "top 11 out of tens of millions" but by substantial coverage in multiple reliable sources. Clearly no such sources have been found. NCRIC presumes they may exist but are hard-to-find. I refute that presumption in this case. For the Olympic gold medal of A. Haslam, I find it plausible such sources do exist because of the volume of coverage of the Olympics and the fact he was captain and won the gold medal. This case however is two everyday matches which might get a few column inches in a newspaper. It is therefore not plausible that Narain's contribution to first-class cricket received the substantial coverage that NCRIC presumes. SageGreenRider (talk) 15:01, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're understanding the popularity of cricket in India. Even in the 1950s, when cricket was followed less fanatically, a local cricketer making the state team could very well have made the front page of a particular city's newspaper. The matches in which Narain participated are far from everyday – the Ranji Trophy has been the pinnacle of non-international cricket in India since its inception, and during his time that was even more the case, as there were fewer teams than now. It's purely speculation to suggest the sources exist, of course, and the language barrier means I won't be the one to find them (unless somewhere along the line they're digitised and translated, which seems unlikely). You could argue that we shouldn't allow articles based on the mere possibility of sources existing, but I think if you allow A. Haslam to have an article then Narain has to have one too. IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see the two cases as polar opposite. One had a career that included captaincy of a team that won an Olympic gold medal. The other had a mediocre performance in a couple of games.SageGreenRider (talk) 13:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument is seriously flawed and does not hold water. NCRIC presumes nothing. It states categorically that anyone who has played in a major match, which includes a first-class domestic fixture in India, is notable. As NCRIC or GNG must be satisfied, this player Narain is notable. He meets NCRIC so GNG doesn't matter. Furthermore, you are making presumptions about Indian cricket and its newspaper coverage that are way out of line. Your whole campaign against these articles, stubs though they may be, amount to nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:16, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCRIC explicitly makes a presumption. It reads in part A cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she... (my emphasis). I believe GNG trumps NCRIC. GNG is policy. NCRIC is a merely a guideline. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong again! GNG and SPORTCRIT also explicitly use the word presumed. The key point is that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". Note that the word "or" is in there. This means that if the subject meets the SSC it does not also need to meet the GNG. Okay? And given that the primary SSC for cricket is playing in a major match, this subject is "presumed" to be notable. If you would like me to explain to you about major cricket in India, do let me know. Bye for now. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please WP:NPA. Your claim was "NCRIC presumes nothing" , however that is not correct. It offers a guideline that presumes notability based on one or more appearances. To presume means "To assume to be true (without proof); to take for granted, to suppose." A guideline is a guideline, nothing more. I believe that following the guideline leads to a false conclusion in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then your belief is wrong. And when have you been subjected to a personal attack? Is saying "Wrong again!" a personal attack!? GNG and NCRIC are both guidelines that presume notability. GNG is not superior to NCRIC because the subject has to meet one or the the other and not both. You are trying to twist the guidelines to suit your own purposes instead of reading and abiding by what they actually say. And don't come on here making false accusations about NPA, either. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:09, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you honestly believe that "Wrong again" is a personal attack, then that is ridiculous for way too many reasons to list here. BlackJack simply stated that, for occasion > 1, your opinion was wrong. Nothing to do with a personal attack. If you're going to invoke dictionary definitions, I might as well invoke mathematics. Bobo. 20:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As for "consensus", I still stand by my belief that there *was* no "consensus". (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_December_6&diff=prev&oldid=694016031)Bobo. 20:36, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ok So you now admit there is a presumption. Good. And I'll allow you one "Local boy makes good" article in the local rag. But GNG is more stringent than only one source. It insists on multiple, intellectually independent, reliable sources. It is not plausible that such sources exist in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The article meets WP:NCRIC, which a closing admin was previously unaware of. IgnorantArmies makes a valid point above too. The guideline is simple and provides a level playing field for the inclusion of all cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level (or in some cases international between minor cricket playing nations). I also feel this would be best discussed at the project page. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 10:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Passes WP:NCRIC, and the only reason given for deletion is "it's like the other one that got deleted", which is bad logic, especially as I believe it was an awful decision to delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The reason for the deletion nominations was given at the outset as "two first class appearances in this case versus one in the other case, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name." Lack of notability is the issue, obviously. The presumption in NCRIC that hard-to-find reliable source have substantially reported on Narain is implausible to say the least. There's simply nothing to write about. SageGreenRider (talk) 14:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I wouldn't be so sure there is nothing more to write about: there were two cricket annuals in India at the time he played, and one of them at least apparently carried biographies of all current first-class players (it was edited by Dicky Rutnagur). Maybe someone has or can find a copy? Johnlp (talk) 18:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - we appear to be becoming bogged down in numbers. How many appearances do you think should be appropriate to keep a cricketer on Wikipedia, SageGreenRider? Bobo. 21:51, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Bobo192 I think one appearance is sufficient if and only if the NCRIC presumption (that such an appearance triggered substantial coverage by reliable sources, which may or may not be to hand) is plausible. I do not believe that the presumption is plausible in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Surely the burden of finding a more reliable source lies on the person who is questioning the reliability of the quoted source - and from hence, governing it by their own criteria...? Bobo. 22:58, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has played in a major match and so meets WP:NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - if anyone has the energy to go through Wikipedia and tag indiscriminately for deletion every single one of the thousands of sports stars in every competitive team sport who have two or fewer appearances at top level, they have some considerable stamina! Bobo. 21:43, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't worry @Bobo192. Remember that scene in Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones? As part of my evil pan-galactic conspiracy to expunge all mention of cr*ck*t from important documents like Wikipedia and Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (which has already supplanted the great Encyclopedia Galactica as the standard repository of all knowledge and wisdom, for though it has many omission and contains much that is apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, it scores over the older, more pedestrian work in two important respects. First, it is slightly cheaper; and second, it has the words DON'T PANIC inscribed in large friendly letters on the cover) I have a huge clone army of socks ready and willing to do my bidding. PS This is an attempt at humor to defuse a tense situation. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SageGreenRider - I know, I know, thank you for being understanding throughout all of this. (Signed, Beephod Zabblebrox). Edit: Never seen this reply-to template before, I like it. Bobo. 01:06, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • U r welcome signed pord fefect... Be sure to hang on to ur towel SageGreenRider (talk) 01:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. There is one question unanswered which is that multiple sources are required. We had CricketArchive as an external link only, which is admittedly not how citations should be recorded. I've found a second source in ESPNcricinfo and have put both of them into the body of the article/stub as inline citations. These are both reputable sources, especially ESPNcricinfo, and may be deemed reliable for this purpose. As for other "unknown" sources, there will be plenty. Johnlp has rightly pointed out that there are Indian cricket annuals, at least one of which provides biographical info re major cricketers. And there is Wisden, which will almost certainly have a reference if anyone has access to the relevant edition and can find the right page(s). In terms of primary sources, Indian newspapers carry extensive coverage of cricket matches (and I mean extensive; it matches coverage of football in GB) so there are certainly newspapers in archives that would tell us much about this player. The problem for us is finding them. So, in practice, we have to rely on CricketArchive (CA) and ESPNcricinfo (CI) to verify that this man did exist and did play in at least one officially recognised first-class match (per CRIN and NCRIC). It is worth mentioning that CA and CI being in accord adds strength to the verification because they do not always agree. Finally, to summarise our main argument, Narain played in a first-class match and he therefore satisfies the sport specific criteria (SSC) of NCRIC for presumed notability; which also means that reference to GNG in his case is superfluous because the rules clearly state he must satisfy either GNG OR SSC, not both. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Force of habit from me I'm afraid. I tend to put all the information in the article and then a single external link - from which all the information in the article can be derived and validated. I see so many occasions in which the same links are quoted in the references and the external links, I never used to see the purpose of this. The question from me is whether I should have included both a CI and a CA link in all articles. Bobo. 11:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Opinion. In my opinion, it should not be necessary but, given the circumstances of cases like Narain and Perera and the rest, I think it would be wise to cite both. Also, use inline citations as an external link is often not seen as a reference because it is actually the equivalent of "further reading" for books. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question (mainly for @Bobo192) You say you have added hundreds of articles like this. During your contributions, have actual reliable sources with substantial coverage surfaced in cases like the five we have been debating recently? What I'm driving at is this: if you can show a pattern where this type of track record triggers coverage, you might have a case to argue against my belief (that such coverage is implausible). I know your presumed sources are unfortunately AWOL in these five cases. But some similar cases must yield something (games played in the era of the internet, for example). You could use such a pattern to extrapolate to this one. Make sense? hth SageGreenRider (talk) 12:53, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Most cricket biographies have begun as stubs which have one or both of CA or CI as an initial source. This is because we have, as a project goal, the creation of an article about every major cricket person and these two sites provide readily available listings of most if not all the players concerned. From that beginning, hundreds if not thousands of the basic stubs have been expanded as we have found extra information about the players in books like Wisden, Playfair, etc. or on the websites themselves, especially CI which tries to give each player a potted biography. We still have more stub-class biographies than start-class but there is no reason why the vast majority will not in practice be developed, given time, or in theory all of them. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:47, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK but can you point me to some specific examples of articles about players who have a single first class appearance and whose performance during that appearance was -- shall we say -- modest and whose article contains citations to substantial coverage in reliable sources? SageGreenRider (talk) 16:10, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Try Arthur Coleridge as a one-match player who started out as a basic stub, but turned out all right in the end. Johnlp (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article. Thanks. He played cricket once for Cambridge University, but his bio published by them only mentions his legal career and his music. No mention of his cricketing for them at all. SageGreenRider (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, for that, you would have to go to the reliable Cricketarchive and Cricinfo websites, which was where I started from without knowing anything more than that he had played a single first-class cricket game 160+ years ago. Johnlp (talk) 18:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SageGreenRider I'm not certain how to answer this question personally, because the basis of deciding what makes and does not make a reliable source is really an opinion of the individual questioning it. One person's opinion of an "actual reliable source" can, as I'm sure you'll understand, vary greatly from another. As for people with a single first-class appearance and a decent career, however you wish to phrase it, that's really up to individual opinion and therefore I can't answer it. The guidelines we work to have *one* criterion, are easy to follow, easy to understand, easy to adhere to, and therefore, easy to weed out the unacceptable. If we start inventing new criteria, where do we stop? Bobo. 17:37, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK How about you give me what you consider to be the three best articles about about players who have a single first class appearance and whose performance during that appearance was modest. SageGreenRider (talk) 17:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I can't do that, for the reasons I explained in my previous comment. Bobo. 18:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... OK How about give me the three that have the most citations returned by the Wikipedia Reference Search link (wrs) in the tool ((Find sources 4|article title goes here)). By the way, NCRIC isn't an objective, hard-and-fast rule. It's merely a guideline. It says in part (at the top where the anchor is WP:NSPORTS) Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion, along with relevant guidelines such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. SageGreenRider (talk) 18:35, 8 December 2015 (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.