Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kapila Dareeju

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. Sandstein 15:34, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kapila Dareeju[edit]

[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)

WP:PROD was challenged so bringing this to AfD.

Cricketer fails WP:NCRIC which only seems to cover international level. Non-international cricket is delt with by WP:OFFICIALCRICKET, however sri lanka first-class cricket is not on the list of notable first-class cricket so they also fail WP:OFFICIALCRICKET.

Outside of that, this cricketer played a single game for Moors Sports Club and seems to have generated no further coverage. Are they really notable? Carver1889 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Carver1889 (talk) 14:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Does this individual fail guidelines these days? I see Sri Lankan domestic competitions aren't on the list of recognized tournaments on the men's domestic trophies section. Which seems strange, as I'm assuming this could lead to mass-deletions of almost every non-Test playing Sri Lankan domestic cricketer... Bobo . 15:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not feign ignorance. As you are well aware, having participated in many of the relevant discussions (and complained many times about the consensus results), only international cricketers for Test playing nations meet WP:NCRIC/WP:NSPORT, and all sports biographies must demonstrate at least one instance of significant coverage in a reliable (non-database) source that is independent of the subject – and ultimately GNG/BASIC must be met, so reasonable evidence that multiple instances exist should be shown at AFD. There is also an easy alternative to deletion in most of these cases, but it would require interested parties to create appropriate lists. Absent of that happening, WP really doesn't lose anything by deleting these database entry mirrors. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When at least half a dozen serial content creators have given up on the project, is it any wonder that we're confused when the goalposts are moved? I stopped paying attention a long time ago...I've been suggesting lists for years and it's only now that this is happening that people are considering it necessary. As for "interested parties", it's not the content creators who have made this necessary. Bobo . 19:39, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Sri Lanka. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 15:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Couldn't find any sources except the Cricinfo profile. Fails WP:GNG by a long margin, I am afraid. Chanaka L (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In the absence of a suitable redirect. Unless List of Moors Sports Club cricketers is created, I'm not seeing a suitable redirect here. The subject fails GNG from what I can see in a google search, and with only one FC game in what we know as a tournament that doesn't gain too much coverage that is accessible, it's unlikely there's anything else out there. If someone creates the list in the week or so the AfD exists, let me know. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hitting random in a WP:O catergory has given me another couple of similar cricket pages I ignored while this AfD was in progress. I don’t want to unnecessarily use AfD if an alternative exists but don’t understand how the redirect to lists avoids WP:NOTDATABASE. I don’t want to bring that into this discussion but if you have a link to somewhere this was previously discussed/ policy I haven't seen it would be appreciated. Thanks, Carver1889 (talk) 14:35, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's been local policy to redirect to a list page if a player is deemed to fail WP:GNG as a valid WP:ATD. The Cricket WikiProject is one of the most complete of all the projects, and with the NSPORTS changes it has been agreed that redirect to lists is the preferred choice if their is a suitable target, and then adding prose to the lists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly calling our project anywhere near "complete" is a route we can never go down. But you cannot blame content creators for that. In theory, we could make the cricket project "complete" just by writing a skeleton article for every first-class cricketer, as it is there are thousands of cricketers missing. I'll come back to 02blythed, the way that they were treated while contributing articles was absolutely disgusting - looking through their overall contributions sees them having created 561 articles all told in just two short bursts of editing in 2007-08 and 2016-17. I hate the way they were so obviously bullied off the project. Bobo . 19:31, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ATD-M, for example, applies here - we can use tables or notes, for example, to add a little detail about a person to a list. If they're appropriate for fictional characters, they're certainly appropriate for people like this I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Moors Sports Club per WP:ATD-R or merge into it per WP:ATD-M. WP:ATD is part of deletion policy. In the absence of an actual list, the club article will suffice. BoJó | talk UTC 20:29, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Given this is such a comprehensively insignificant player in the clubs history, any kind of mention in the club article would be grossly WP:UNDUE and without a mention there a redirect would be inappropriate and unhelpful. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:26, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG/BASIC due to a total lack of significant coverage. No appropriate merge/redirect target. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:27, 2 October 2022 (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.