Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P. Imadura

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 D. Lete. Sandstein 19:05, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P. Imadura

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails WP:SPORTBASIC as it relies on routine statistical listings, with no indication of significant coverage. This RfC has confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. Dee 03 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 16:05, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I didn't realize there were still more of these to do. <irony>How did I miss the typo I made on Piyaratne's page? And how did it go unspotted for eleven years?</irony> This is what makes me sad and suspicious about why these are being discovered now, and why nothing was done about it then... Bobo . 17:19, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am always shocked at how many non-articles we have in some sports.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They're not non-articles. They're articles. They just don't come up to some people's standards. Hopefully one day we will have enough information to improve these beyond where they currently stand. Please don't denegrate 14 years of someone's work by claiming these aren't "articles", when they are the best we can do with the information we currently have. I'm just sad some of these are being pointed out 14 years too late. The very issue is that in some sports, particularly Olympic sports, setting up articles takes five minutes or less. I have no interest in doing so any more given how my work is being attacked, but presumably it would be easy to expand these. I'm also sad that it only appears to be cricket articles that it's okay to attack. But I won't rise to the bait. More to the point, and not to retread old ground, I find it amazing that anyone saw any consensus in the linked conversation... I've always maintained that and I always will. Bobo . 18:33, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or, preferably, redirect to a suitable list if there is one (I don't think there are just now). We know so little about these chaps that we're incredibly unlikely to ever be able to add anything to the article - we lack basic biographical details and in almost every case we know of only one cricket match they played in - in an arguably marginal first-class competition (the exception is Gunasena where we have a handful of miscellaneous matches that he also played in). In these circumstances I simply don't see how we'll ever be able to build verifiable biographies and I have significant doubts regarding the general notability of such players. I certainly can't find the sorts in-depth sources or even range of peripheral sources that I'd be looking for. This is consistent with the arguments made at similar AfD such as:

over the last six months. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:34, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does Christina Gough meet CRIN? (Yes, I know it doesn't matter...) I don't fully understand those brightline requirements, just like the ICC Trophy exclusions, it's a field that needs defining exactly in my head. In any case, as is clear from my first-class players' lists, there are so many initial-only women's first-class players who would probably be deleted anyway - these have purely just not been researched enough into at this time. Please forgive me for asking too many questions, I'm just trying to get these things sorted in my head. Incidentally, I see nobody after the conversation was relisted actually voted "delete", so there is now no doubt in my mind that this doesn't have anything to do with "consensus"... Bobo . 20:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, it was an Old Cambrians player who we were able to find extra information about. Perhaps information from the same source(s) could be used to find more information about N. Piyaratne, Bobo . 20:26, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would recommend that the supporters of these articles seek to find more information about these players. Most of these players played in the 1990s; it's likely that most of these players and their teammates are still alive. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:57, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Honestly if we don't even have the first name of a person why bother with an article? These are all better suited for a list. If we can find more info including first name, birth year, etc, we can perhaps keep. But now there is no basis for having this. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:23, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In South Asia it's pretty commonplace for people to be known by their initials and surname rather than their full given name, so I don't think we should read too much into that. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- these aren't biographies. They're match score cards. All this meager statistical information would be better covered in lists of cricketers by club. Reyk _YO! 09:30, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have cited another source that adds a tiny bit to WP:GNG, but may subtract a tiny bit from WP:CRIN. I wish I could say that I'm surprised that so many people have seen fit to comment here without even mentioning the sole Google Books result from the search links at the top of this discussion, but I have got pretty used to seeing Wikipedia editors argue about things without so much as a glance at the evidence. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:03, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did find that Google Books mention during my WP:BEFORE search and do not understand how it satisfies the "significant coverage" part of GNG. Besides, that list may have been generated with the use of a tool like Statsguru or a simple database query. Dee 03 17:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 17:06, 8 January 2020 (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.