Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I. Kudigame

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. Clearly no consensus on whether to delete or keep the page. Given how many of these articles have been put through AFD recently, the next step, if any, should probably be an RFC about the Cricket SSG, rather than more AFDs. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 07:21, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I. Kudigame[edit]

I. Kudigame (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)

BLP which is unreferenced since 2009 and fails GNG. We don't even have the rudimentary information required to write a biography: the person's given name or date of birth. He appeared in one match which is the sole claim of notability (BLP1E). According to the article text, "he did not bat or bowl in the match"; that being the case, there is absolutely nothing about the player to write in the article. After a successful deletion through PROD, the article was REFUNDed with the contestant's rationale: "easily passes WP:CRIN." This article serves as an excellent example of why we can't let SSGs override GNG. Dee03 20:19, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Point of order. Yet again, this editor is citing BLP1E in flagrant breach of its own ruling that WP:NSPORTS is outside its scope. Sports people noted for a single event are subject to the SSG as this editor might realise if he actually takes the trouble to READ the guideline. This is a disruptive AfD which is bang out of order. See also the entries below re WP:NEXIST, etc. Jack | talk page 20:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • General request - we either need to put a stop to frivolous nomination of articles which clearly meet WP:CRIN, or to have a serious discussion about whether WP:CRIN is fit for purpose. As for "references", the "references" are the same as the "external links", it's just that back then they were more often being added as external links. Exactly the same links but with a different heading. Bobo. 20:45, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:49, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - actually, cricket articles are the proof that SSGs have nothing to do with GNG and prove GNG to be completely needless and pointless. The fact that we have kept to the same basic inclusion criteria since I joined, and that nobody has been able to come up with better criteria in thirteen years, is proof that the SSG criteria are probably fine. Bobo. 21:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I still find it suspicious that nobody who disagrees with the basic tenets of WP:CRIN and is likely to contribute to this AfD decided to pipe up here... Bobo. 21:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The criteria (CRIN) have been in place for 13 years doesn't mean they are "probably fine". Especially when you look at the number of articles that have been deleted in the past few weeks despite meeting the said criteria. And GNG doesn't become "completely needless and pointless" just because you say so. The closing admin of the most recent AFD wrote, "It seems clear to me from the RFC that community consensus is now that the sports-specific guidelines (i.e. WP:NCRIC, etc) do not override the WP:GNG." Looks like the current community consensus isn't the same as what it was 13 years ago, and perhaps it's time you accepted that. Dee03 21:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In which case appropriate conversation needs to take place to change the guidelines, and until these guidelines are changed I will simply assume the guidelines are fine as they are. Bobo. 21:57, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which guidelines need to be changed? It doesn't matter if CRIN is changed, the subject still has to meet GNG which this particular gentleman doesn't. Dee03 22:02, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The whole point of every single cricket deletion discussion is the simple fact that WP:BIO and WP:N directly contradict each other, each rendering the other completely meaningless. Bobo. 22:07, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have added a second source just in case the WP:ONESOURCE argument pops up here... Anyone who wishes to reformat these as references is free to do so if they wish. Bobo. 03:34, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete neither of the sources add up to significant coverage. This article is orders of magnitude below the general notability guidelines. We have for far too long included articles on people with literally no coverage. I am not sure how to do it, but it is 100% clear that the cricket notability guidelines need to be scapped in favor of something actually in line with where reliable sources are likely to be found. A general review of all sports guidelines is actually in order. Our sports coverage is way out of touch with reality. Starting with the assumption that every participant in the close to free for all 1904 Olympics is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into a list of Galle Cricket Club players. It's clear that diluting bare statistical data across a multitude of almost contentless microstubs is becoming an untenable situation. The sources are not even sufficient to determine this person's full name. Merging into lists of players by club seems a better way to present this very trivial data. If no suitable list exists, simply delete. Reyk YO! 09:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The cricket guidelines have done us fine for the last 12 years and it's only in the last month or so that they have been causing problems, mostly because WP:IDONTLIKEIT - but also, it has to be sadly said, because of the contradictory guidelines regarding notability. Once again we need to say, "If the guidelines need to be scrapped, we need to work, as a team and collaboratively, on new guidelines which can be universally applied". Bobo. 06:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- at the time of writing, this "article" contains 41 words of text about this obscure person and a whopping 116 words in a bizarre footnote not actually about the player, but full of circuitous wikilawyering and special pleading, attempting to explain why this article should be exempt from WP:V and WP:N. This is very clearly a hopeless case. Reyk YO! 11:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't for a certain clique of time-wasters, there would be no need for the footnote. Surely you are not claiming that footnotes are deprecated? A footnote is used, inter alia, for explanation of a facet that is not directly relevant to the subject. The key point you have noticeably ignored is that Mr Kudigame has THREE inline citations of THREE reliable sources and, as the footnote explains, WP:NEXIST applies to Sri Lankan cricketers because reliable and expansive Sinhalese sources DO EXIST. Jack | talk page 12:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly Jack, the "timewasters" appear to be getting their own way via a set of rather tasty and contradictory Wikipedia guidelines. "This is disruption, but not as we know it, Jim". If these "timewasters" simply worked by the most basic WP guideline that we learn on our first day, NPOV, there would be nothing to debate. Bobo. 14:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect (or smerge) if a suitable list can be found. We have incomplete database entries only which demonstrate probable existence rather than the in depth sources required to show notability. As far as I can tell those sources do not exist and I feel it is going to be hard to assume that they do given where and when he played in his only known game of cricket. With an initial and surname and one scorecard we can say so little about the chap that I see no realistic possibility that the article can be developed in any way. If such sources can be located then it is easy to recreate the article. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:44, 24 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]
  • Keep - the two basic notability "guidelines" completely contradict each other, each rendering the other completely worthless. The only way to work to guidelines is by following simple, universally applicable notability criteria. As Jack explained, press coverage has been proven, rendering the main excuse for sending to deletion completely meaningless. It has now been proven that there is coverage outside of the links provided
And while WP:DONTKNOWTHEGUYSFIRSTNAME sounds like a nice rationale for deletion, it sounds a tad unwieldy for a hashtag, doesn't it? ;) Bobo. 14:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BlackJack. If Sri Lankan sources exist, there is no reason for this AfD to exist. Lepricavark (talk) 17:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think it is reasonable to assume that sources exist which provide "significant coverage" for Mr Kudigame, a player who appeared in one match in which he did not even bat or bowl. Even if a source gives us his first name in passing, that is still considered to be "trivial mention" and therefore insufficient to establish notability. Just having his full name (trivial mention) or statistical profile (falls under routine coverage) appear in one or more reliable sources is NOT sufficient to claim that he qualifies to have a standalone article. Dee03 19:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And how is this nomination disruptive? I have already cited multiple policies/guidelines which this article clearly fails to meet making it eligible for a deletion discussion. Time-wasters? I would appreciate it if User:BlackJack behaves in a WP:CIVIL manner and assumes good faith once in a while. Dee03 19:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is disruptive because you and your friend Rhadow are pursuing some kind of agenda without knowledge or understanding of what you are doing. For example, I note that you have YET AGAIN cited BLP1E as your main reason for opposing this article. If you care to READ that guideline you will see that NSPORTS is expressly outside its scope. Before you come into areas like AfD shouting the odds about this article and that article I strongly recommend that you work on articles to gain experience and, in the longer term, credibility. As for the garbage you have written immediately above, I suggest that you are not reasonable in the slightest. Of course the Sinhalese sources exist and of course they provide information, especially at local level, that English sources cannot. Real world calling. Jack | talk page 20:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is one of the several guidelines I cited, GNG being the main one and you continue to conveniently skip talking about GNG in all of your utterly rubbish rationales. BLP1E states some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event. -- It says "may support the notability" and does not state that sports articles are totally exempt from the guideline as you claim. And per the WP:NEXIST guidline you keep crying about, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. As for "working on articles to gain experience" or whatever, I will choose to do what I want to with the limited free time I have for Wikipedia and certainly not be told by you regarding that. Sure, any guideline that opposes your point of view is "garbage". If there is anyone shouting the odds at AfDs these days, it's you. Dee03 13:50, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dee, we have over and over again pointed out that the places in which the basic notability guidelines are noted, work on completely contradictory principles. This is why all of the sweeping notability guideline pages can and should be completely disregarded. Yes, we should stop talking about these sweeping notability guidelines, but not for the reasons you are suggesting. Bobo. 15:20, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the two most comprehensive and accurately compiled cricket databases on the Internet are "trivial", please cite what you would consider to be non-trivial references. The irony is that usually it is the other way around. It takes six months to find a text reference to, say, a football player, and when we do so, it would probably just be a reference in John Smith's "List of all-time Southampton FC players", published by Anonymous Random Books in 1976. Why do we trust John Smith more than anyone else? As for citing numerous guidelines, the fact that the two main guidelines directly contradict each other should render both completely worthless. Bobo. 22:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep - this is clearly allowed by WP:CRIN, if you disagree with that you should take it up at the discussion page (where an active discussion is under way where I agree with the nominator's basic point). Procedurally, a consensus can't over-turn the 5 pillars or the 3 core content policies. However, WP:Notability isn't any of these. With a lack of content, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR are trivially met, and the existing sources are sufficient for WP:V. As far as WP:5P1 is concerned, this clearly qualifies as valid content for a specialized almanac. power~enwiki (π, ν) 22:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Never thought about 5P1 before. Cheers for bringing this to our attention. Bobo. 22:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's brilliant. It never occurred to me either. Thank you, power~enwiki (once again, as it happens). All the best. Jack | talk page 14:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional rationale for keep. I would add, 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 15:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Please disregard any keep vote based on WP:NEXIST. That guideline states this at the end: once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. It has been 9 years since the creation of this article and surely that qualifies as enough time passed without any proof of existence of such sources. Dee03 13:51, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop dictating what other admins' thoughts should be. My argument had nothing to do with NEXIST, once again I was merely thanking Jack and Power-enwiki for bringing up a point which I had never considered before. I commented earlier that because the two basic notability guidelines contradict each other, the only fair yardstick is the brightline one appearance criterion. Bobo. 15:06, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was a request (see the "Please" at the start of the note?), not dictating. And these are your own words in your keep vote: "As Jack explained, press coverage has been proven, rendering the main excuse for sending to deletion completely meaningless. It has now been proven that there is coverage outside of the links provided". You are agreeing with Jack's rationale which is based on NEXIST and have also claimed that there is proof of press coverage which is basically what NEXIST says (existence of sources which are not in the article). I can not find the so-called press coverage sources being cited in the article, as of now, and it has been 9 years already. Dee03 07:55, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep  The article is now referenced.  GNG is irrelevant if the lede of WP:N is satisfied.  Nor is this a proper deletion nomination, as notability is not relevant to deletion without analysis of WP:ATD.  Unscintillating (talk) 12:10, 28 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/I._Kudigame&oldid=1136111397"