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 keep. Editors recommending deletion argued that 1) There is a lack of biographical information that is normally expected, 2) The cited sources lack substantive prose about the subject, and 3) the player does not appear to meet the general criteria for sports professionals nor the general notability guideline, and that WP:NCRIC is not appropriate. Editors recommending to keep the article remarked that 1) The player fulfills the particular notability criteria for cricket players, 2) that there is no requirement for biographical details to be available on sports professionals, and 3) arguments about WP:NCRIC itself are out of scope here, and need to be settled first at the appropriate venue.

Favoring deletion, there is minimal prose-based coverage about the individual, biographical or otherwise (e.g. about their sports achievements), suggesting that both WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG may not be met here: The prose that is available does not appear to go beyond routine coverage (they are match reports) and the primary sources that verify stats of the match cannot be used to support notability. Favoring keeping the article, there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players. Issues over source reliability and the subject's name were also addressed. 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 BlackJack's notes in this discussion) and not present in the article at this time. Hence, some early recommendations to delete (or speedily delete) have been reevaluated in that light. The requirement for coverage specific to an individual's work, education, or relationships is not based on any guideline I am aware of. Furthermore, disputes about whether the NCRIC criteria is generally appropriate are wrongly placed here. For these reasons, the outcome of this discussion is keep, and I'd encourage folks to participate in the relevant guideline discussions (here and here) if they haven't already to help guide future decision-making in these sorts of situations.

Finally, there was a slew of disruptive behaviors in this discussion I need to call out because it wastes everyone's time, including my own. If you've made an argument in an AfD, it is disruptive to repeat it over and over. I heard y'all the first time. Second, do not ask people who are likely to agree with you to participate in AfDs. Third, it's disruptive to change the relevant notability criteria outright in a manner consistent with your position during a discussion like this one. (Starting a discussion/RFC about changes? Now there's an idea.) Finally, if you are frustrated with another editor, go their talk page, ANI, or disengage entirely if you can't help but lash out at others while getting your point across. Don't use an AfD page to persist in personal spats. I, JethroBT drop me a line 02:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
S. Perera (Old Cambrians 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)

Biography of a living person about which next to nothing is known: we have an initial and a surname, and the fact that he played in a certain cricket match. Previously deleted at AfD here, previous deletion review is here. This article has been re-created with new text and one additional source. In view of the very recent history I feel it's appropriate to discuss this at AfD. —S Marshall T/C 18:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural remark: Sections named First !vote section and Second !vote section were introduced by Pldx1 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First section[edit]

You have misunderstood my comment. I admitted no such thing; quite the contrary - I was quoting another editor with whom I disagree. StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is your (first) !vote. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. Hello again, Bobo. The one that springs immediately to mind is W. G. himself. If you compare his bio in the two sites, you will see that CA lists every first-class team he ever played for, while CI lists only six but not the United South of England Eleven (USEE) which is a massive omission in terms of his career. I have come across several lesser known players where the two sites have different statistics and if you check out matchlists, especially from early cricket, you will find differences there too. Jack | talk page 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers Jack. Hopefully this is evidence enough that one does not simply copy off another and the two work based on sources provided independent of each other. Bobo. 21:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is this the same Marshall who wrote crappy articles like Catalina Parot and List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs? The latter which is completly unreferenced, failing WP:V and possibly WP:GNG and the former which is the Chilean lawyer equivalent of S. Perera? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think there's something wrong with those articles, feel free to nominate them at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That went right over your head, Marshall. Nevermind. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 20:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, while we're being so frank with each other: No, it didn't. I just chose a response that would shut you down, because you know perfectly well why it's appropriate to have an article about a Chilean government minister or the dinosaurs of a particular continent. And you know perfectly well what I'm saying about this one. If you had a mind, you could improve those articles, but you couldn't improve this one, because there's nothing else you could possibly find to say.—S Marshall T/C 21:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nice try, Marshall. Well done! Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fundamentally, my position is that to have an article on S. Perera is technically within our rules but falls below our normal community standards.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, if you want to put it that way, I "don't like" that we've got a biography of a person whose name we aren't sure of and whose only lifetime accomplishment was to score eleven runs and a wicket in a cricket match in Sri Lanka in 1991.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree that it's not satisfactory. But your response is to delete it, whereas mine is to see it as part of a long-term process and project and capable of improvement. And there, I fear, we shall continue to disagree. Johnlp (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this whole AfD debate appears to be based on the difference between applying WP:ONESOURCE and not. So this article falls below "normal community standards"? Wikipedia itself says there is no such thing as a perfect article. And there never will be. There is no such thing as "normal" and we are working on a single, simple, and easily understood guideline which puts Brian Lara at the same level as S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). Anyone who argues otherwise is flouting WP:NPOV, which states that every article be treated "fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias". Anyone who wishes to argue that the inclusion criteria is too low should be willing and able to suggest their own, based on consistency and NPOV - not their own personal opinion.
    If the debates about the appropriateness of the WP:CRIC inclusion criteria has taught us anything, it's more about the importance of WP:ONESOURCE than people's individual opinions about what makes an article "notable" or not. And it's more important to continue *these* discussions rather than batch-deleting cricketers who have a single FC appearance just for the sake of it. Bobo. 21:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this would be a second !vote: indenting. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Removing this recommendation to keep as this was stated by the editor above once already. I, JethroBT drop me a line 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. That is absolute rubbish and you know it is. The original article, which was deleted, made no reference at all to ESPNcricinfo (CI) and only mentioned CricketArchive (CA) in an external link, not as an inline citation. This new article has CI as an additional source and both are referenced inline with considerably more information and linkage provided for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with Sri Lankan cricket. CA and CI are independent of each other and both are highly reputable and widely used on this site as well as throughout cricket writing generally. You mention the DRV and I would remind you that its result was no consensus which means we are free to revist the article and attempt to provide an improved version. As for Perera's forename and "other people with similar names", a subject expert from the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (the ACS) has advised me that there were TWO players called S. Perera and, subject to verification, he believes he has the full name of the Old Cambrians player. The ACS is one of the most reputable sources in cricket research circles so if we can soon add that into the article's reflist, the picture will change somewhat dramatically, though frankly two reputable sources are already sufficient to show that the person meets WP:NCRIC. Jack | talk page 22:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And until we this claim is published, your citation is absolutely worthless. That fact is, even if we say that CA and CI are independent sources, they are still not providing significant coverage, and so the subject still fails WP:GNG. And passing WP:NCRIC doesn't make up for that. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does. An article must meet either GNG or NCRIC, not both, though both is obviously to be preferred. Jack | talk page 08:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No - NCRIC is part of WP:NSPORT, which says "The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." In other words, the only reason NCRIC exists is to help us determine whether GNG is fulfilled. StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The *only sources*? Statistical entries? What kind of information would you rather? POV biographies copied from source to source to source with no respect for truth? By that metric, surely 95 percent of sources on articles from even high-profile subjects are non-permissible? Bobo. 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course other stuff exists. That's why everything within a single notability guideline is at *exactly* the same level. Because other stuff exists. Otherwise we would have just one article on every single subject. And the mere concept of that is simply ludicrous. Bobo. 08:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - just to point out, the nomination points out no criteria for which the article would be permissible to delete, and in fact gives more reasons to *keep* it than delete it... Bobo. 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment. The nominator also confirms that the article "has been re-created with new text and one additional source" which means that the statement by User:Reyk is misleading and should be ignored. Jack | talk page 22:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure why ping. The reason for deletion- that there is just not enough biographical information to write an article- has not in any way been addressed by these new "sources". One of them doesn't even mention this player, and all of them are just raw database entries on two sites whose business is to collect all such statistics. Drip-feeding almost empty sources to cynically get around the wording of CSDG4 is just gamesmanship. Reyk YO! 23:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I pinged you out of courtesy because you have a right to answer my criticism of you for making misleading statements. You have replied by further misrepresentation when you say one of the citations does not mention the player. Ever heard of "context"? The purpose of that citation is to confirm that Perera's team was first-class, so I have made a relevant statement within the article and provided a citation to verify it. Jack | talk page 12:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Briefly at the right level? The important thing is that he was at the right level. "Briefly" doesn't come into it as per NPOV. Bobo. 23:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Every guideline is a subject-specific notability guideline, because every article relates to a specific subject. Bobo. 00:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it does not agree with WP:NCRIC, since it fails WP:GNG. WP:NCRIC explicitly says that articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. All the first-class appearance says that the article probably meets WP:GNG, but there is no evidence to suggest that is actually does. And it fails WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage - there are only bare statistics mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again you are twisting things and misrepresenting the facts. NOWHERE does NCRIC say that "articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". The only mention of GNG in NCRIC relates to under-19 players who do not meet NCRIC but might nevertheless meet GNG in non-cricket terms. Jack | talk page 08:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Significant" is as subjective a word as "notable". Everything which is written down in any form of medium will have some form of writer bias based on availability of information. What makes one source more "significant" to one person may not make a source "significant" to another. That is why we have subject-specific guidelines to guide us to a single, simple, notability criterion - so that these debates can take place there rather than here. Bobo. 09:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually NCRIC clearly says it in the FAQ "No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions.". Bear in mind that although NCRIC redirects to a specific section of the sports notability guideline, it cannot be read in complete isolation from the general page. The general page clearly says that all article have to meet the GNG (as should all subject specific guidelines) and so does GNG itself. If you believe that subject specific guidelines remove the requirement that articles meet the GNG you're mistaken. As NCRIC explains, as does GNG, the subject specific guidelines are there to make things simpler when it's likely something is notable, but the sources required to meet GNG haven't been found yet. Just to be clear, they explicitly do not remove the requirement that the article is eventually able to meet the GNG.

As to how this affects this AFD, if significant effort had been put in to finding the sources needed to meet GNG and they have not been found, this would strongly point towards a delete. If there was little effort, then it seems to suggest a keep. However the fact that this has already been deleted once, and the new sources don't seem to give any indication of meeting the GNG would seem to point toward delete. If it was felt the original deletion was improper, that should have been handled with an AFD review.

If people believe they are about to find the sources which would either meet GNG or at least give fairly strong evidence it could be met, then that's great, but I don't understand why they didn't wait until they found these sources before recreating the article.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NCRIC is part of NSPORT - see above. And so it "provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, it seems that have not been any policy-based arguments offered for keeping the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There have been no policy-based arguments to support deletion. You and your convenient sidekick have repeatedly tried to twist and misrepresent guidelines. Not only that, you are even contradicting the nominator. Jack | talk page 08:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea who my "convenient sidekick" is. And of course, "contradicting the nominator" is a terrible argument, worthy of inclusion in WP:AADD. StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope this doesn't seem overly defensive but I think it's appropriate to have the discussion before making decisions based on said discussion. Bobo. 01:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Since sufficient information has been provided to show that the individual is notable(ish), I switch my !vote to keep. Argyriou (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, and the investigation has already exploded one of the myths put forward by certain people that this Perera is the same person as another one known to the two websites as a player at a different club. I am waiting for my contact to come back from holiday today. It is possible, if not probable, that the player's full name will be confirmed and other data may be reported too. It is all too easy for the likes of Anselm and Reyk to try and dismiss something because they don't like it. I fail to see how their attitude helps the readers and it certainly doesn't help those editors who are trying to build subject coverage. Surely it is obvious to anyone that not all data is immediately available and that often you have to use what you can and be patient for more. Why don't they propose the abolition of all stubs? Jack | talk page 07:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Recentism only works if it's actually *pro* the individual in question! We are working entirely on the information available to us. That according to the guidelines of not just cricket but every other competitive team sport, this individual is notable. Bobo. 08:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I apologize if this seemed like canvassing. I was purely being courteous to a friend for considering an aspect that I hadn't considered - if you read what was written in his comment, it appears he simply put it in the wrong place and it looks more as though he intended to leave it here. Bobo. 09:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking of being courteous... [2] are you sure that this is the right way to go about defending a decision - and then cowering for forgiveness? Bobo. 10:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cowering for forgiveness" my arse. I was asked to dial down the swearing and I politely agreed to a reasonable request. It's the last time I will, because obviously making a concession out of politeness leads to opportunistic point scorers such as yourself gloating and crowing about it. I just haven't got the time or patience to indulge your brand of mendacious fuckwittery. Reyk YO! 10:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No politicians' answers please, a "yes" or "no" will do fine - since you haven't actually answered my question. Bobo. 10:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I'm really not going to take the bait. Nice try. Go pester someone else. Reyk YO! 10:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, the comment in question certainly wasn't intended to be left here - it was made before this page was created. StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lugnuts, I'd be grateful if you'd kindly stop the unprovoked personal attacks on me now, please and thank you.—S Marshall T/C
  • I would love to hear them in Henry Blofeld's voice though, wouldn't you? Bobo. 10:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order. WP:N says nothing of the sort. WP:N actually says: "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 listed in the box on the right" (including WP:ATHLETE). WP:ATHLETE states in bold: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below (including WP:NCRIC). Please do not misinterpret and thereby misrepresent what thes guidelines actually do say. The criteria clearly state that NCRIC alone is sufficient: it is GNG OR SSC. Jack | talk page 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, please note the words The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No, that is incorrect. You are misinterpreting both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE and it is no good for you to go around calling people liars just for disagreeing with you. A rebuttable presumption is not a guarantee, and WP:ATHLETE very clearly states "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." This could not be any clearer. WP:NCRIC does not trump the notability guideline- it defers to WP:N. At most, it helps editors decide when it is likely that sources exist- but it is still necessary that they actually do exist. At this point, after two AfDs and a DRV, there is still no substantial sourcing so it is now clear that the "rebuttable presumption of notability" has definitively been rebutted. In fact, if WP:NCRIC encourages the production of many contentless microstubs like this one, then WP:NCRIC is inadequate and should be repealed or tightened. Reyk YO! 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackJack: Why do you accuse another editor of lying when the lede of WP:N states in black and white: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article"?--obi2canibetalk contr 16:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also note that the approach being taken to the recreation of this article a very short time after the DRV is an issue of concern. I thought long and hard before contributing to this AfD, partly as a result of that and partly because I wanted to read extensively some of the related comments. I've no doubt that there are wider issues in play here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I am the main author of WP:CRIN from which NCRIC is derived, I'm always happy to review its criteria and guidelines. This controversy goes a lot deeper than NCRIC, though. It is clear that there is considerable disagreement about the interpretation of WP:N, GNG and SSC. How do we resolve that? Whatever you may say about priorities, the fact is that both WP:N and ATHLETE actually say the article must satisfy either GNG or SSC, not both and not one at the expense of the other. Suggestions? Jack | talk page 14:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that there is a general issue around the specific sport criteria at least. Possibly in other areas. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, when you say that "a cricketer without an appearance in any of those types of games is necessarily non-notable", it does say in NCRIC that under-19 players and, by inference, other players from minor competitions, may be adjudged notable by reference to the wider GNG. We use an appearance in a major match as a benchmark for notability; anyone else has to meet GNG as they would fail NCRIC. Jack | talk page 14:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In practice however it seems commonplace to use NCRIC in a Boolean fashion when it comes to other players. Certainly there are two cases currently included in a bulk AfD that I tend to think pass the GNG but where it is being argued that they should be deleted simply because they don't have a FC, LA or T20 appearance. In my view a less simplistic Boolean approach would be a helpful starting point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just so I understand you, which AfD do you mean and which players do you think meet GNG? I personally would not argue the NCRIC only line if they meet GNG. Jack | talk page 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are arguments that can be made at WP:Articles for deletion/Nosaina Pokana Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But if this is the case, it is hard to see why the previous consensus to delete should be ignored (or overturned). StAnselm (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because 'outnumbered' is 'inconclusive' when the grand total number is six? Pldx1 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, (a) that's a lot more !votes than often occurs at deletion discussions, and (b) we don't actually count votes, but weigh arguments. StAnselm (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Since we don't count the votes, a closing describing not 3/3 as outnumbered is invalid. Pldx1 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The emphasis was certainly on the arguments; the exact words were "the "keep" opinions are unpersuasive as well as outnumbered". In any case, it is widely conceded that the discussion did tend towards "delete". StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The closer of the DRV who decided its alleged consensus is the nominator in this AfD. DRVs are supposed to be closed by an independent admin assessing the policy-based arguments rather than by taking one side. This AfD nomination to delete the new article in which some concerns from the DRV are addressed suggests (at least to me) that the independence and objectivity of the DRV close is not assured. Just like the original AfD was closed by an admin who shifted position when his failure to consider NCRIC was pointed out, so has the DRV closer who kept that article deleted now shifted ground even with independent sources are provided. EdChem (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, hang on, that's not fair at all. I closed the deletion review in good faith and without forming a preconceived opinion. I regularly visit the deletion review page and I know what my closes say, so I naturally noticed when the S. Perera link in my own close went blue. That made me think, "Hello, this material was deleted for cause. Who's re-created it again?" Then I looked, and checked the new source, and I thought, "I don't know if that source is enough to overcome the previous consensus for deletion". So I started another AfD. Then I saw that this discussion was going differently from the previous ones. That's when I started seriously thinking about the issue, and I posted a long and nuanced post here which fully acknowledged that this article is a different article from the one that was deleted, and fully acknowledged that it has another source, but I still felt it was below the community's standards. Then Lugnuts started his ad homming, which didn't exactly fill me with seasonal cheer. That's when I started arguing more forcefully that this material needs to go.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The original AfD was closed with the closer not taking note of the guideline. When this was pointed out, he shifted ground and refused to revise his close. No consensus at an AfD leads to keep, but your no consensus rather than relist close defaults to delete - the outcome you are now advocating. I can't know your thoughts or motivations which is why I wrote that circumstances suggest to me that independence is not assured. Is it unfair that I have doubts? Maybe, but admins acting on their preferences rather than as independent assessors of consensus is sadly not unknown. Also, the AfD closure whose decision you endorsed (in effect) has certainly shown a willingness to act unilaterally and to refuse to consider the possibility of error, which might (unfairly) influence my suspicions here. I saw the DRV close as being cited as widely endorsing the deletion, a characterization I found difficult to swallow, and I noted that questions can be raised. There are certainly issues with articles like this, but for me, deleting articles rather than holding a discussion on NCRIC is the wrong approach. Recreating the article can also be taken as provocative, I agree, but taking the bait by AfDing just sets up another fight over a specific case instead of fostering a discussion of the general issue. EdChem (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've seen people go down that route before with overly permissive guidelines; with WP:PORNBIO, I'm particularly thinking of. It's extremely time-consuming to argue with a wikiproject's favourite guideline and I'm just not that invested in it. For me, the concern is about this specific case in which the community standards and expectations for articles are being subverted. Does the community really want to allow creation of a biography of a living person who we can't even unambiguously name? If that's within the rules then we're following a rule off a cliff.—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't deny that the PORNBIO thing was a mess. As I said in the DRV, there are likely print sources in Sri Lanka, just not much online. Also, undermining a guideline by trying to pick off articles one by one is hardly less time-consuming a way to pick a fight. EdChem (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the joys of WP is that there are lots of different people with different skills and differing priorities who come together to create an encyclopedia which is, in its own definition, "a reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information". The Cricket Project has over a long period taken the view that the word "comprehensive" is important in this, whereas you seem to suggest that that view is "silly". You're entitled to your view, but why do you want to impose that on everyone? And would you apply your view to, say, Hillebrand (baseball) which is, I'm sure, justifiable as an article in terms of completing the set of major baseball players? Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Roy, if that's true, please take that up with WP:NSPORTS, for which the same is true of almost every competitive team sport. Bobo. 17:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the expansion - see below. StAnselm (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is your (first) !vote. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your move. Pldx1 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed amendment to WP:ATHLETE[edit]

  • Thank you. Can I suggest that the FAQ at the top of that page is well worth a look. It really helps to place the sports specific notability guidelines in context and, in my view, suggests that they need to be used alongside the GNG etc... Have a read - all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There are now two external discussions taking place: here and here. I suggest that the decision on Perera rests with the outcomes there which will address the issue of whether SNG on its own is sufficient or whether GNG is essential regardless of SNG. Perera certainly meets SNG (i.e., NCRIC in this instance) but whether he meets GNG too is questionable, unless additional sources can be confirmed (still waiting for the possible ACS input). Jack | talk page 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I support the amendment to Wikipedia:Notability (sports), but I don't think this discussion relies on it passing or failing. As was pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Notability, "there are occasions where our presumption is wrong... but those are actually extremely rare, and can be dealt with on a case by case basis". This would seem to be one of those extremely rare cases. And with this edit this becomes the deletion discussion to which I have made the most contributions ever. StAnselm (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third source confirmed[edit]

One point I should make is that the title should be changed to Suresh Perera (cricketer, born 1970 as there is another Suresh Perera, who played in Tests for Sri Lanka, but I will not move it while there is an AfD ongoing.
Could all contributors please look at the revised article and amend their entries as appropriate given that we now have this extra info? Thanks. Jack | talk page 17:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where have the ACS published this information? While it is brilliant that we have it, at the moment it simply appears to be WP:OR, albeit by a member of the ACS on our behalf. WP:V says that sources have to be "reliable, third-party, [and] published". The Sri Lankan newspaper would appear, to my mind, the better source, if we can get the details. Harrias talk 17:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that is good news. Pleasingly too, the somewhat analogous baseball player I alluded to above (Hillebrand (baseball)) has had his article somewhat tweaked by one of the participants in this discussion after being around for some years in a fairly unsatisfactory state. Johnlp (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, what is the publication? The article suggests that there is a 2015 publication called Sri Lankan cricketers. Is that correct? StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - nothing is truly verifiable unless we were there as a witness at the time, and if we were, doesn't that contravene WP:PRIMARY? Bobo. 17:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, we simply need it published in a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Except that we haven't verified it yet... StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do no re-add BLP violations. Consider this your warning. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Consider this your warning." Perhaps you ought to lower your tone StAnselm, it's highly condescending. And perhaps you ought to leave reverting such things to other users, who aren't trying to influence an AfD outcome. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
From [[3]], it seems that User:StAnselm is a simple user, as anyone else. Pldx1 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, StAnselm is bang out of order. Screaming about BLP violations instead of waiting for me to answer the very reasonable question posed by Harrias above. StAnselm has both a caution and a final warning on his own talk page about BLP which appear to have had no effect on his arrogant attitude. He may be a "simple user" but he most certainly is condescending and his approach to this article is entirely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and his desire to make a WP:POINT about it. He should apologise to Bobo192 and AssociateAffiliate among others.
Right, Harrias, thank you for your question which is very pertinent because it has led me to query what the ACS have published. To cut a long story short, I understand they issued a guide to Sri Lankan cricketers several years ago (about 2005, apparently) in one of their limited edition handbooks. My contact does not have this issue as he was not a member when it was published but he is working on an up-to-date draft with the intention of having that published by the ACS in the near future. As Perera is a 20th century player, it is believed the details given were in the published guide and they will certainly form part of the new guide. As you say, however, the guide must be published not under review.
The good news is that the lady in Colombo visited the newspaper archive yesterday and has verified the information from the paper's two match reports. The second match report confirms that the Suresh Perera involved is the "former Old Cambrians player" and so, given that Old Cambrians did not have another player with the name, it is the same man in both matches despite a seven-year gap. He was a last minute replacement in the Kurunegala team due to another player being injured. The first match report mentions him as a debutant and confirms the ACS information plus the additional facts that he was "local" (i.e., to Moratuwa) and he was a student (we don't know what his job was seven years later). Sadly, we still don't know if he was RHB or LHB but that is unimportant given that he was recognised as primarily an off spinner.
I'm rather short of time at present, which is why I haven't replied to Harrias before now (StAnselm, please note, some of us are busy in reality), and I need to work out how to cite a newspaper report because I haven't done it before so please bear with me.
I suggest that StAnselm does something about his unacceptable attitude and he can start by replacing the valid information he has removed. His action breaches BLP because he is denying the player's known name. What he should have done, of course, is place an appropriate tag on the article requesting verification or refimprove. But, no, he has to make his WP:POINT and start screaming hypocritically about BLP. His attitude in reverting my inputs effectively accuses me, an editor with ten years experience, of bad faith. I am quite happy to have a tag placed on an article because that is simply asking a reasonable question, as Harrias has done here, but a wholesale revert before the question has been seen, let alone answered, is reprehensible and, as I say, bang out of order. Jack | talk page 08:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A further point to illustrate StAnselm's unacceptable behaviour. Thank you to Blue Square Thing for directing me to this. In the FAQ at the top of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), Q4 reads: "What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?" The answer says: "There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given". This case is about a Sri Lankan domestic cricketer active twenty years ago and, after considerable effort, the key sources about him are found in a Sinhalese language newspaper. Yet StAnselm insists on immediate deletion and anything which is known but is pending verification violates BLP. Are his actions those of a responsible editor acting in WP:AGF? Jack | talk page 09:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, you can't place two templates on someone's talk page simultaneously and expect that to count as two separate warnings. Similarly, you can't play tit-for-tat revenge games with templates and expect anyone to regard them as legitimate. Anyway, we have found out in this discussion that CricInfo and CricketArchive are not reliably accurate, at least regarding obscure just-barely-first-class players, since both sites seem to have got both his career span and identity wrong. I am not inclined to trust the reported bowling and batting figures either now. If StAnselm was worried about possible BLP problems, then it turns out he was completely justified. Reyk YO! 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neither can you behave in such a childish way that a senior admin feels compelled to call you to order. It is true that CI and CA appear to be mistaken on this occasion because they relied only on scorecard data and in their bio pages have not tied up the connection between the two matches. No one is perfect. Data about 20th century Sri Lankan cricket is not easy to come by, as this case has demonstrated. Having said that, by pointing out that the two websites are wrong, you obviously accept that the ACS and the newspaper are right and that your previous argument about insufficent sources is invalid. So, thanks for that. Jack | talk page 10:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about you don't put words in my mouth? I haven't commented on your new sources because I haven't seen them. Instead, I relied on your admission that CI and CA were wrong. How many other obscure first class cricket players' articles are sourced predominantly to bare statistical entries on those sites? How many of these also suffer from glaring errors of fact like this one? Should the community re-evaluate whether these two sites have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Reyk YO! 10:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@BlackJack:, I think you completely misunderstand WP:BLP policy. Perhaps you are operating with an old version in mind, from when you first joined the project. The current version says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis original). When this (allegedly) conflicts with a notability guideline, obviously the BLP policy takes precedence. It is ridiculous to suggest that removing the material also constitutes a BLP violation - articles do not need to contain everything about the subject that is thought to be true, but they should not contain anything that is unverifiable. Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please. StAnselm (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been updated using information I have received via an ACS contact from a Sinhalese language newspaper based in Colombo, two match reports having been cited. I am making no further comment on this AfD. Jack | talk page 13:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now that this extra source material has been added, once again I ask, does this not completely invalidate the original reason for deletion, and therefore this article need be reappraised based on this data? Bobo. 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've re-added the external links, one to CA and one to CI. This is looking like an article which needs to be completely reappraised based on the information which has come to light since the start of the AfD, as every single reason behind the original deletion rationale has been addressed. What should we do? @BlackJack: @StAnselm:? Bobo. 14:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, are you saying that the subject now meets the GNG, in your opinion? StAnselm (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Me? I had no doubt that it met GNG in the first place. As for right now? Significant coverage, yes. Notable sources, plural, now that a second external link has been added, yes. Independent of the subject? Yes. Two independent websites, and two independent, non-online sources. Bobo. 16:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not what verifiability is at all. StAnselm (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Second section[edit]

And this is one of the details that is so borderline verifiable. Does the newspaper in question identify his first name? I'm not sure, and all we have is a second- or third- (or fourth-) hand account of what the newspaper said. StAnselm (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • this would be a second !vote: indenting. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC). Thanks for your move.Pldx1 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The above proposed amendment to WP:ATHLETE caused confusion on where to place the iVotes. I deleted my first posting and moved DGG's iVote to be in chronological order. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, merely because a person is notable to be included within the pages of Wikipedia does not mean that there is enough source material to justify a stand alone article on the topic. The standalone article will never be detailed or complete simply because there presently does not exist enough source material to justify a stand alone article on the topic. The information on S. Perera can be included within the pages of Wikipedia, just not in a standalone article. See GNG. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think our inclusion criteria for many sports are a considerably too low in some respects, and would like to see them increased. But I do not mistake my wishes for what our guidelines ought to be, for the actual accepted guidelines. And if I wanted to change them I would go the route of an RfC, not a particular AfD. I don't do that because 1/ it is not a high priority for me, and 2/I think the consensus does agree with our relative unrestrictive guidelines in this field,and when something is that well established and harmless, it's not a good idea to change it. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close will be based on the deletion guideline WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, which notes "Consensus is not determined by counting heads (e.g. number of iVotes on one side vs. another), but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." -- Jreferee (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another difficult issue will be how to interpret a "no consensus" result - normally this defaults to keep, but in the case of an article recently recreated after a deletion discussion, there is an argument to be made that it should default to delete. StAnselm (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, given that the article was immediately recreated after a previous Delete consensus was endorsed at DRV, with just enough cosmetic changes to scrape by G4 but with no genuine attempt to fix the problems, I think it's clear that in this case no consensus should default to delete. Another problem is that the article depends entirely on two very scant sources containing exactly zero actual prose, and both of which seem to be inaccurate and unreliable. Before too much weight is given to keep votes citing NCRIC, it should be remembered that this guideline was written entirely by the Cricket wikiproject and inserted into the WP:ATHLETE subguideline with minimal discussion. Claiming it is binding on the rest of the encyclopedia is very dubious. Even if it was, SNGs at most only provide a rebuttable presumption of notability, not a guarantee, and this AfD has definitively rebutted it. Reyk YO! 15:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would be interesting to know on what you base your view that www.cricketarchive.com and www.espncricinfo.com, the two main sources cited, are "inaccurate and unreliable". I've been using these sites and citing them within WP for more than 10 years, and they both provide a superb service with very high accuracy: probably in the order of 99.99%+. Moreover, in my experience, where they don't know something, as with this cricketer's first name, they give only the information that they actually have. I'd be interested to know if you have found different in your cricket researches. Johnlp (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them claim this S. Perera is two different people. When you're writing a biographical article and both sources get the man's identity wrong, that's a pretty glaring error in my view. Reyk YO! 16:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both of them agree that a cricketer of this name appeared for Old Cambrians and a cricketer of this name appeared for Kurunegala Youth in first-class (major) matches. They don't know if this is one cricketer or two, but are prudently not conflating the two: their information comes direct from scorecards and reports of matches. That's not an error on their part: it's a highly reasonable position in the absence of further information which they don't, as yet, have. Both of these websites, like WP, are works in progress: if it's proved that this is one cricketer, and not two, then doubtless they will update. Do you have other instances of their "inaccurate and unreliable" status with which you might enlighten us? Johnlp (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right. So... if they don't know if it is the same, we should write the following "S.Perera is the name of one or two cricketeers who played for Old Cambrians and Kurunegala...", which is hardly a suitable article. Even more reasons for deletion.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, of course not. We should write only what we can verify. Which is that a cricketer called S. Perera played for Old Cambrians... which is essentially the article as it came into this process. The title of this AfD rather gives a clue to the fact that we are talking about this specific bit of verifiable information and this single specific cricketer. Johnlp (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or in other words, this article will likely be in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not permanently, a WP:PERMASTUB. A good reason to delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, because as the not-quite-verified contentions above have demonstrated, there is scope for expansion and for new information to emerge when more Sri Lankan sources are available. No one is suggesting that this is the definitive finished version of this article: like much of the rest of WP, it is a work-in-progress. There is, I would reckon, considerably more scope to improve this article, given the paucity of Sri Lankan articles on WP and the likelihood of untapped sources, than there is for many other similarly small articles: for example the baseball article Hillebrand (baseball) that I cited earlier. Johnlp (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I note that PERMASTUB (which is a user's essay, rather than policy, but anyway) says the following:

"It is important to note that permastubs are articles that cannot be expanded. A stub – even a stub on what you see as a trivial topic – is not a permastub if there is verifiable and encyclopedic information that can be added to it. The importance of a topic is not a factor in how much can be written about it – we have Wikipedia:Featured articles on things that are obscure and strange."

...and there is no evidence that this article cannot be expanded. In fact, I expanded it slightly myself just yesterday, and I would hope that some of our Sri Lankan editors, who have access to non-English and paper sources can expand this further.

The job of this AfD is to decide if this chap is or is not notable, which can be based either on GNG or a specialist subject notability guide. The members of the Cricket WikiProject have a simple and effective guide. While we wring our hands and argue the toss over certain individuals, like those who play in youth international cricket, we all agree that anyone who demonstrably has played first-class cricket, that's cricket at the highest domestic level, is definitely notable.

This is an encyclopedia. Deleting anyone who has played first-class cricket makes this encyclopedia less encyclopedic. You may think this person's biography is a trivial topic, but that's just POV. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer I have changed WP:NCRIC during the discussion (difflink).--Müdigkeit (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I endorse Müdigkeit's change to NCRIC. Reyk YO! 12:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Change reverted until there's a consensus to change it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have requested admin attention to this discussion, and possible closing this nearly two-week-old AfD. EdChem (talk) 13:17, 30 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.
More