Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. de Silva

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. Consensus that GNG is not met, which NSPORTS dictates must happen for standalone articles. ansh 666 07:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

D. de Silva[edit]

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

Fails GNG, relies on routine statistical coverage in Cricinfo and CricketArchive. Per this RfC, SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. Dee 03 14:25, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:52, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A single database source to support a (presumably) BLP is insufficient. The original data gatherer could not be bothered to write down the person's first name. How can we support an encyclopedia article based on that? Rhadow (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The "single-source" nonsense is easily solved by anyone who knows the first thing about cricket. Bobo . 15:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information and that should especially ring true for BLPs (also presuming). Editors may say he passes the criteria for cricket but nothing trumps GNG. If anyone can find significant coverage anywhere (I couldn't) then I will happily change my !vote.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 21:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Bare statistics inflated to prose do not make for an encyclopedia article. It's been shown that this kind of minimal "coverage" isn't sufficient for the biography of a presumably living person. There's not enough information here to even determine this person's full name, and the one source in the article has been shown to be sometimes unreliable. The cricket wikiproject's rules do not supersede project-wide requirements for substantial sourcing. Reyk _YO! 22:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can find nothing to show notability for this person beyond their one appearance in a cricket match. The source provided is a database entry rather than a substantive source and tells us that a match that he played in took place, his surname and initial. We don't have a forename, date of birth or even which hand he batted with for example - in those circumstances (and after careful searching for sources) 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. The close of the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Kodikara certainly seems to support such a position as well. In addition this is (probably) a BLP. In these circumstances I'm even more wary about keeping the article without sourcing beyond minimally detailed database entries.

For the sake of clarity, I would opt for the same outcome if this were a player from an anglophone country with the same circumstances.

If we had other details (forename, date of birth etc...) and/or the player could be shown to have played in other cricket matches (i.e. of a non-first-class status) then I could be persuaded that there is a fair chance that sources might exist. I would have no prejudice against the re-establishment of the article if such sources can be shown to exist. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete It is high time that we revised the notability guidelines for cricket players, and put it above a single game apperance. We do not create articles on every academic who is granted tenure, and that is a process that involves many more steps of widely recognized scholarship than appering in one match.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:NCRIC, which is the relevant sector-specific guideline for notability (WP:CRIN has it in more detail). Inline citations now provided. Johnlp (talk) 12:07, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - I request to keep this article but it has to be improved. Cricinfo and CricketArchive are most important websites as a part of WikiProject Cricket. No one cannot state a normative statement that Cricinfo and CricketArchive are unreliable sources. Abishe (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Abishe -- Cricket Archive solicits scorecards from its subscribers [1]. That doesn't sound like a reliable source of data, particularly on living persons.Rhadow (talk) 20:27, 19 December 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.