Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Thusara

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. Thusara[edit]

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

This stub article has insufficient content to be an encyclopedia article. It is missing the subject's given name and his or her birthdate. There is no indication that the team Moratuwa or its venue was first-class on the date of the subject's sole appearance. Rhadow (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - I thought we were over these. Why has it taken you this long to find them when they are in the same categories as each other, and decide that you dislike the article based on your own personal criteria? "Insufficient content" is not a valid rationale for deletion. "Doesn't note the individual's birthday" is nonsense rationale. The fact that the article exists is indication that the match in question was first-class... Bobo . 18:04, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have appreciated that you would have notified me when you had sent this article up for PROD, nearly seven days ago. The fact that you did not do this and continued to send this article for deletion is clear abuse of deletion tools and purposes. Bobo . 18:25, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poorly sourced article that is not notable. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense - the article contains two links to independent sources referencing the subject. How much better sourced do you wish the article to be? Bobo . 19:38, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can find nothing to show notability for this person beyond their one appearance in a cricket match. The sources provided are database entires rather than substantive sources and tell us that a match that he played in took place, his surname and first initial and that he batted right-handed. We don't have a forename or date of birth for example - in those circumstances I don't believe that we'll be in a position to verify anything about the person beyond what we currently have at any point in the foreseeable future. If we can't add substantive sources then there's a clear failure of the GNG and several RfC (such as this one) have made it clear that sports notability criteria only provide a presumption of notability if there is a hope that the GNG will ever be met. If we had a forename, date of birth etc... and the player could be shown to have played in other cricket matches (i.e. of a non-first-class, List A etc... status) then I could be persuaded that there is a reasonable probability that those sources might exist. I would have no prejudice against the re-establishment of the article if those sources can be shown to exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Basically a name on a database but Wikipedia is not a directory. One match, one mention but no substantial sources. With so little information -- even his full name is up for debate -- there is a near non-existent chance this individual would ever pass WP:GNG in the foreseeable future.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 00:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CRIN as a first-class cricketer and has therefore a presumption of notability. Further sources likely to be in Sinhalese and therefore not easy to access, but no reason to suppose they do not exist in a cricket-mad country. Nominator's aspersions re the Moratuwa Sports Club's notability are without foundation: the club played 96 first-class cricket matches between 1989 and 2009, though its first-class status was not continuous in that period. Nominator wrote on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#WP:CRIN_wars that he would desist from these mischievous and time-wasting AfDs. Johnlp (talk) 10:26, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Blue Square Thing. Two statistical database sources are insufficient to establish GNG. Dee 03 14:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A day in a life of a barely known individual hardly qualifies per WP:GNG. Blue Square Thing sums it up pretty thoroughly. Frankzappatwin (talk) 10:28, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Another virtually empty article based on bare statistics, with sourcing so poor that the person's name cannot be even be determined. The only sources are statistics aggregators CricInfo and CricketArchive, which have been shown not to be independent of each other in the sense that one copies content extensively from the other (or in both directions), and which have been proven to have non-negligible rates of error. These alone are not good enough for the biography of a presumably living person, and there is no real prospect of anything reliable or substantial turning up. Finally, it's not even certain whether the club Thusara played for was a first-class club at the time of his sole match, so cannot even be shown to meet the ridiculously lax standards of WP:CRIN, even if that overruled our general notability requirements. Which it doesn't. Reyk _YO! 15:14, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete totally fails any reasonable notability criteria. It is time to reign in the far too over inclusive criteria for sportsmen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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