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 delete. Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria. In cases where an article is reasonably shown not to meet the gng than the bar is set higher and since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:40, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club 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)

Non-notable BLP SageGreenRider (talk) 23:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Technically passes WP:CRIN, but perhaps this is an example where we have to remind ourselves that they are only guidelines: single match, no runs, no biographical details. StAnselm (talk) 05:28, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:CRIN is a guideline that suggests when a player is likely to be notable enough to have significant coverage. Part of the reason for blanket policies such as this, is that we don't always have access to local sources. Generally a first-class cricketer, even one who only played one match, will have received significant coverage in independent local sources. That said, this is clearly an extreme case. On the evidence we have access to online, the player does not meet GNG, as there is no significant coverage, what we have is purely statistical. Harrias ^talk 08:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as passes WP:NCRIC. If people want to challenge WP:NCRIC, they should start a proper discussion/debate at WT:CRIC or WT:NSPORT. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if the consensus here is keep then I think WP:NCRIC is too low a bar and should indeed be reviewed. For example, if the topic is a author, then it's not enough to publish a book with a reputable publisher. WP:AUTHOR read in part In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. Or maybe WP:AUTHOR is too high of a bar? SageGreenRider (talk) 14:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You can't compare the inclusion of an author to that of a cricketer. Cricket and the status of matches played makes such a comparison ridiculous. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Authors write books. Cricketers play cricket. According to policy neither is notable until multiple independent reliable sources publish significant coverage about what they do. I do not believe such coverage exists in the case of the subject here. SageGreenRider (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep meets WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:21, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep meets WP:NCRIC. NCRIC is an easy guideline to follow, and as anal as the FC/LA/T20 rule might appear, it is nonetheless a simple rule to establish which players need articles. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 12:51, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If the result of policy is the retention of articles like this one, then I respectfully suggest it is broken.SageGreenRider (talk) 16:12, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I respectfully suggest you haven't the first clue about cricket. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 17:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No personal attacks, veiled or otherwise, please. WP:NPA SageGreenRider (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Where do we draw the line? A single major cricket match is the only possible line we can draw, otherwise what is the solution? We have a single, universally workable, criterion by which we judge whether a cricketer is notable for inclusion. We already make it a point to include the most comprehensive and accurate source available to us as to whether or not a cricketer is "notable" by this rule. No further complication needs to be made. Bobo. 23:40, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As far as I understand it, the guidelines are exactly the same for every competitive team sport. Cricket, football, American football, baseball, basketball, ice hockey... dozens that I've probably forgotten. Bobo. 23:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment WP:BLP says in part "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." ...so that's what the line is. It beats an expediency based on a singular event IMHO. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:16, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Please forgive me if I sounded abrupt in my comment. I haven't edited Wikipedia properly for a long time so it's rather fortunate I managed to catch this AfD notification when I did. Bobo. 00:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• No apology necessary. Honest men can have a difference of opinion. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The awkward thing about subject/topic-specific guidelines is that they need to exist so that we do have *some* lower bar. When I started making lists of redlinks of cricketers who (by WP:CRIC guidelines) are notable, I was never expecting there to be as many redlinks as there at first were, especially within English cricket - given how well the subject is already covered. Bobo. 00:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not aware of anything in policy that allows "subject/topic-specific guidelines ... need to exist so that we do have *some* lower bar" SageGreenRider (talk) 00:49, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments
  • WP:N says in part "...notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time..."
  • WP:BLP says in part "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
  • WP:MUST says in part "...the burden of evidence to provide reliable sources is on the editors that include it. Unless you can indicate what and where the sources are, they are not verifiable." I understand that local sources are not very accessible to us, but I seriously doubt that the subject of this article ever received substantial coverage in some as yet undiscovered source. SageGreenRider (talk) 17:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comment: What the guideline is saying here is that Perera is presumed to be notable. In other words, there would be lots of references to him in Sri Lankan newspapers of the 1990s, if only we could find them. StAnselm (talk) 19:10, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to me implausible that such articles exist in this case. What substance would there be to write about? SageGreenRider (talk) 19:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment he is obviously notable for having played a first-class match. But we must also note that his date of birth is unknown and so is his given name. The only thing we can write about him is regarding the solitary match he appeared in. I feel we shouldn't create articles on cricketers with such limited information available. 117.192.188.97 (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comment. But do you feel we should keep it or delete it? SageGreenRider (talk) 02:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say delete, and it's best to not create articles on cricketers whose first name and date of birth both are unknown. Perera is a common surname and "S. Perera" could refer to anyone with that surname and whose first name starts with S. If either of these two basic details (first name and date of birth) can be found on a reliable source, this article might be worth keeping. 117.192.168.221 (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I totally agree with User:SageGreenRider that a policy that argues for keep for such non-entities is broken. I can see this entry as part of a list, but such substubs with no chance of ever growing should not be considered valid individual articles. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If this article *does* get deleted then there needs to exist a serious conversation about the consistency of the notability rules for almost all aspects of WP:ATHLETE, which is inextricably linked to WP:BIO. Yes, I know at the end of the day WP:GNG trumps them all, but this article is not the only article about a first-class cricketer with no known first-name and only a single first-class appearance. We can't have one rule for one and one rule for others. There needs to be consistency. A cricketer who has appeared in a single first-class match is no different from an American footballer who has just one NFL appearance, an ice hockey player who has only one NHL appearance, etc, etc. There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia about cricketers with just a single first-class appearance. Bobo. 20:35, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Whatever the outcome, it seems to me that the presumption in WP:ATHLETE that every appearance will automatically generate substantial coverage is seriously flawed and needs review. A typical newspaper write up will only give substantial coverage to three or four players. In cricket, you have 22 so most won't get even a mention, never mind substantial coverage. In American football the problem is even worse because of free substitution. If each side has an offensive, defensive, and specialty 11, you have 66 players in a game. I'm guessing 60+ of those will not receive substantial media coverage. SageGreenRider (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being reasonable throughout all of this SageGreenRider. All I will say is that this cricketer is by no means in a unique situation regarding Wikipedia. By working to what a lot of people would consider the "lowest" possible bar (cricketers with a single first-class appearance as directed by WP:CRIC guidelines), I feel that it would be easier to "start from the bottom" and work up, if that makes sense. (Incidentally, that's what I meant when I was referring to a "lower bar" above). Bobo. 21:00, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just realized that for all my defence of this article I haven't actually !voted myself. Speedy keep for the simple reason of consistency, with the opportunity for further discussion in the right places. As I've explained above, the notability guideline for every single competitive team sport is the same, and if we disallow one from a list of thousands who share the same quality, someone has to go and disallow thousands of others, not just from cricket but from at least five other sports. Cricket is not alone on Wikipedia for being a sport which allows articles for people with a single professional appearance. If I may suggest that if this article is kept, discussion is ignited at the appropriate place for discussion regarding the guidelines on individual sports - of which I believe for competitive team sports, they are all the same - consistent and simple to follow and adhere to. Bobo. 07:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sports guideline says that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept", for a single match player whose name we don't know I doubt any good sources exist, let alone finding them. A reasonable standard would be if a player regularly appears in games and/or if fans at the time could easily recognize them then they probably would have good coverage, thus notable. Single match no-names, not so much. Rainbow unicorn (talk) 00:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rainbow unicorn. This does not pass WP:NSPORT which clearly says "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." The keep !votes here have not offered any policy-based argument. StAnselm (talk) 00:48, 9 November 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.