Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dinesh de Zoysa

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. The arguments made here go beyond this individual page, a proposal was made here to re-evaluate the criteria of WP:CRIN. I would recommend the conversation be added WP:RfC for broader input. J04n(talk page) 16:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh de Zoysa[edit]

Dinesh de Zoysa (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)

Subject meets WP:NCRIC, but fails WP:BLP1E and no general press coverage to meet WP:GNG. See discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers Rhadow (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • POINT OF ORDER. It does NOT fail WP:BLP1E because NSPORTS subjects are expressly outside its scope as the nominator might realise if he actually takes the trouble to READ the guideline. Is this incompetence or is he pursuing some kind of agenda? As for "general press coverage", see below for how this subject is covered by WP:NEXIST re Sinhalese sources. This AfD, like the others of its kind being raised by this individual and his sidekicks is completely out of order and is disruptive. Jack | talk page 21:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not making a big deal about this but really, what is the point of me and others having put all this work in to put articles onto Wikipedia which you know full well meet WP:CRIN, when they're just going to get deleted by WP:GNG, a woolly, contradictory, nonsense guideline? I'm fairly certain List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers is going to be deleted but I feel frustrated that all this work we've put in over the years is just being destroyed and that makes me sad. (Incidentally, comparing a randomly cobbled together, indefinable article containing the text of articles we've decided we don't like, with articles which we know meet WP:CRIN, is like comparing apples to Ferrari F40s)... If all these articles are being deleted which clearly meet WP:CRIN, we really need to be discussing new guidelines rather than sending hundreds of articles for deletion... In fact, Jack has set up a topic on WT:CRIC about this matter if you (or others who are planning to participate in this AfD) wish to contribute. Bobo. 23:15, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - and, as a sidenote, List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers was "under construction" for a suspiciously long time without any actual construction taking place... Bobo. 23:19, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a list of Colts Cricket Club players, if there is a suitable list article of that type. Otherwise delete. Reyk YO! 08:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Reyk YO! 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Reyk YO! 12:21, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep it and we have to put a stop to such nominations. This article easily passes WP:CRIN and for time being its fine. I don't think we need any lists as per above mentioned discussion or need to merge to any list. If you think there is any problem with WP:CRIN then start a discussion and build a consensus first. Greenbörg (talk) 15:03, 19 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

There is a discussion going on about WP:CRIN which is here. Greenbörg (talk) 15:16, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this were any other project, footy, American football, baseball, yadda yadda, these debates wouldn't even be happening, and the nominators would probably be being castigated for disrupting the project. Likely those who did so twice or more would be indef-blocked for disruption... As I've said below, we either have to choose one rule and stick to it, completely change the rule we've currently got working, which has served us fine for the last 13 years, or get the people (who generally speaking know nothing about cricket or Wikipedia) who nominate articles or vote delete, to come up with new, universally applicable, neutral, brightline criteria. I don't see that happening, somehow. We're going to keep being bombarded with these debates and we're going to have to accept them because of the IDONTLIKEIT brigade. Bobo. 17:00, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request procedural close while the discussions at WP:CRIN and WP:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers are ongoing, it's impossible for a discussion here to reasonably decide to delete this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure - probable redirect as Reyk - on the one hand we have more information here - a full name and a date and place of birth. Those might enable us to find more information in suitable sources - depending somewhat on what the state of coverage of cricket at this level was in Sri Lankan newspapers in the late 90s. On the other hand, his CricketArchive profile only lists this single match. There is no reference to any play in any other competition - that tends, in my experience, to mean that it's less likely we're going to find sources. The lack of obvious sources on the subject - having done all of the required checks nothing appears at all (the chap who's the director of several companies is 7 years older so it's presumably not him) and there's nothing at all on the club website. On the whole then I feel it's very unlikely that we'll find substantive sources that will allow us to have anything more than a statistical driven entry for the bloke. Given that I think redirect is probably the best strategy, although if there's a chance sources exists then I'd be entirely happy to either wait a few months for them to be found or for the article to be recreated. I am sending out feelers to check if such sources might exist.
On a related note, does anyone know if the Saravanamuttu Trophy and its descendants are (or were) fully professional affairs? Or have they ended up involving a number of enthusiastic amateurs? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Does it matter? This shows that some games were labelled first class, some were not. The cricketers who took part in the first-class games are notable. The ones who didn't, were not. If we're working to any criteria other than this then we are working against the aims of a comprehensively compiled encyclopedia. As I've said before, we either choose one rule and stick to it, or continue having these arguments based on completely inapplicable, contradictory, nonsense criteria. Bobo. 16:54, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It could matter, yes. In general there's often a subtle difference between the ways that notability might be judged for amateurs versus professionals. In FOOTY, for example, I think a player appearing in a league which is not fully professional would rarely be judged as notable - certainly in the modern game. I'd be interested in whether this might be worth considering in cricket terms. If not all match in the competition was FC then, to be honest, I'd be more likely to move towards delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:30, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not when we have brightline criteria. First-class/List A = notable. Not first-class/List A = not notable. Why are people refusing to see this as an easy to understand guideline - and the only way by which we can neturally judge biographical articles? How many more times will articles like this, which even the people who send these articles for deletion know meet guidelines, have to go for deletion before the people who care about the cricket Wikiproject simply give up? Bobo. 17:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that a procedural close needs to happen while we're busy discussing things which affect the entire project. Once again, it's unfair to single out articles like this, Tom Cranston, and heaven knows how many others, while conversations are going on. We are going to end up having dozens of articles as either redlinks or unjustifiable redirects thanks to the WP:IDONTLIKEIT crowd showing their faces after 13 years. We can't just go on having redlinks like Cranston willy-nilly, we need to be coming up with proper solutions instead of having people who, frankly, have no interest in the cricket Wikiproject, dictating what articles we must and must not keep without any knowledge or care for incredibly basic, universally applicable guidelines. Bobo. 16:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:32, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete one website that compiles records alone and provides no indpeth biogrpahical coverage cannot stand as the lone source for a BLP. The default on BLP articles is to delete unless they clearly meet notability requirements, which this article clearly does not meet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As has been repeatedly stated on other AfD's, anyone who knows anything about cricket knows when and where to add a second from. Bobo. 03:11, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:ONESOURCE complaint has now been dealt with, rendering John Pack Lambert's complaint obsolete, as this was his only logical complaint about this article I suggest it is passed over. It is not true that this article "clearly does not" meet notability criteria, as has been suggested infinitely through other AfD debates. May I suggest in the future that instead of wasting a delete !vote on the argument of WP:ONESOURCE, this is simply brought to the attention of someone else and the second source is added when necessary? Bobo. 03:29, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:BLP1E - notable for only one event, based on two scorecards/database entries. This brings us to WP:SPORTBASIC which plainly states that database entries are not sufficient for establishing notability. Databases or score cards such as these are considered trivial coverage. These can be used to support content in the article, when notability has been otherwise established. Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is still necessary. Hence, fails WP:SPORTBASIC and GNG.
Additonally, NSPORTS#Applicable policies and guidelines says meeting GNG is a requirement and biographies must meet BLP standards, which this does not. The article was created in 2009, so more than enough time has passed to add reliable sources and improve the article. WP:CRIN does not supercede NSPORTS, GNG, and BLP. Wikipedia is not a website for indiscriminate collections of information. Steve Quinn (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Although these obsessive anti-CRIN individuals will not admit it, there are in existence significant Sri Lankan sources as we were able to establish in the case of Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). A contact in Sri Lanka was willing to check a highly reputable Sinhalese newspaper, Dinamina, for a specific match report and found additional information about that player. While we obviously cannot expect anyone in Sri Lanka to perform short-term checks of Dinamina for every single first-class player, the match report she did check proves not only that Sinhalese sources exist but also that their cricket coverage effectively matches that of newspapers in the English-speaking countries. The fact of this level of coverage by Dinamina and other Sinhalese publications meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. These nominations are disruptive. Jack | talk page 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Inline citations. There are now inline citations from THREE independent sources in the article, all of them meeting WP:RS and, by means of a footnote, an explanation of how the article meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. I suggest that this AfD is closed immediately as a complete waste of everybody's time. Jack | talk page 11:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jack, sadly, judging by the deletionist cabal's recent exuberant joy at the ability to criticize subjects of which they know nothing, and their ability to widely apply the accepted guideline of WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT, sadly this issue will not be dropped nor will these articles be saved. We will end up yawning our way through another three DRVs and get absolutely nowhere, and our cricket project, thanks to a group of editors who have no interest in working to patronizingly easy to understand guidelines, and contradictory inclusion criteria, will continue to be fully discredited. Our project is beyond saving.
With all that said, WP:ONESOURCE has now been addressed, rendering these complaints obsolete. Sadly the comments about whether GNG and SNG work side-by-side will never be solved as the two direct "rules" pages distinctly contradict each other, each rendering the other worthless. Bobo. 13:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. No explanation needed. The two basic "notability guidelines" completely contradict each other, each rendering the other completely worthless. If people want to start deleting articles for which it is insultingly obvious they meet criteria, they need to work constructively with the community, including members of WP:CRIC and every other sporting Wikiproject (which runs to exactly the same rules of a single top-level appearance) to create new guidelines. I doubt they'll be successful, but it's worth a try for the sake of being collaborative, right?
The WP:ONESOURCE criterion has now been comprehensively dealt with and as such the votes which centre around this point can be fairly disregarded. Bobo. 14:07, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cricket biography is brought to AfD. Sources are added to demonstrate notability. Rinse. Repeat. Enough already. Lepricavark (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly the deletionist cabal get their way dangerously often, proving a net drain to the encyclopedia, as well as violating the most basic Wikipeida guideline we learn on the first day we come to this site, NPOV. In any case, comparing this article with a randomly cobbled together list of articles is deceptive. Bobo. 22:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it as this is established by previous AfDs that bios of these players should not be all stats. I don't think we will ever have coverage from which we can write enough biography for him. Not discussed in detail by multiple sources so we can write enough without WP:OR. Name-checked only by match records in different sources which only verify him per WP:V but this still fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As stated elsewhere, this article is not "all stats". An "all stats" article would actually have a table of stats... which this one doesn't. As for "not having enough material to write about him", this is clearly untrue and simply requires more research into other areas which we are as yet unable to find. Bobo. 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, per DGG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.
Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "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 notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | talk page 15:16, 25 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dinesh_de_Zoysa&oldid=1137788209"