Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Editors recommending deletion argued that 1) There is a lack of biographical information that is normally expected, 2) The cited sources lack substantive prose about the subject, and 3) the player does not appear to meet the general criteria for sports professionals nor the general notability guideline, and that WP:NCRIC is not appropriate. Editors recommending to keep the article remarked that 1) The player fulfills the particular notability criteria for cricket players, 2) that there is no requirement for biographical details to be available on sports professionals, and 3) arguments about WP:NCRIC itself are out of scope here, and need to be settled first at the appropriate venue.

Favoring deletion, there is minimal prose-based coverage about the individual, biographical or otherwise (e.g. about their sports achievements), suggesting that both WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG may not be met here: The prose that is available does not appear to go beyond routine coverage (they are match reports) and the primary sources that verify stats of the match cannot be used to support notability. Favoring keeping the article, there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players. Issues over source reliability and the subject's name were also addressed. 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 BlackJack's notes in this discussion) and not present in the article at this time. Hence, some early recommendations to delete (or speedily delete) have been reevaluated in that light. The requirement for coverage specific to an individual's work, education, or relationships is not based on any guideline I am aware of. Furthermore, disputes about whether the NCRIC criteria is generally appropriate are wrongly placed here. For these reasons, the outcome of this discussion is keep, and I'd encourage folks to participate in the relevant guideline discussions (here and here) if they haven't already to help guide future decision-making in these sorts of situations.

Finally, there was a slew of disruptive behaviors in this discussion I need to call out because it wastes everyone's time, including my own. If you've made an argument in an AfD, it is disruptive to repeat it over and over. I heard y'all the first time. Second, do not ask people who are likely to agree with you to participate in AfDs. Third, it's disruptive to change the relevant notability criteria outright in a manner consistent with your position during a discussion like this one. (Starting a discussion/RFC about changes? Now there's an idea.) Finally, if you are frustrated with another editor, go their talk page, ANI, or disengage entirely if you can't help but lash out at others while getting your point across. Don't use an AfD page to persist in personal spats. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:30, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)
• Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination)

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (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)

Biography of a living person about which next to nothing is known: we have an initial and a surname, and the fact that he played in a certain cricket match. Previously deleted at AfD here, previous deletion review is here. This article has been re-created with new text and one additional source. In view of the very recent history I feel it's appropriate to discuss this at AfD. —S Marshall T/C 18:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Procedural remark: Sections named First !vote section and Second !vote section were introduced by Pldx1 (talk) 10:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

First section

• Speedy delete: The speedy nomination was declined by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, on the grounds that "the new text adds a significant RS (ESPN page) not mentioned in previous discussion". However, it is clear that in terms of information presented the two sources are virtually identical, and the issues that led to the previous deletion have not been addressed. StAnselm (talk) 19:01, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The reason for the earlier deletion was because of insufficient sources in that there were no inline citations and only a vague external link to one online source. As you admit yourself, "the new text adds a significant RS (ESPN page) not mentioned in previous discussion"; the new sourcing therefore addresses the previous issues. In addition, for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with cricket, the article now provides additional background information which was not there before. Please do not try to mislead readers by making out that nothing has changed between the two versions. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:09, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

You have misunderstood my comment. I admitted no such thing; quite the contrary - I was quoting another editor with whom I disagree. StAnselm (talk) 20:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Article complies with WP:NCRIC because the subject is a first-class cricketer as verified by inline citations from two reputable sources which are widely used by WP:CRIC. Admittedly, the article is a WP:STUB and additional information is desirable, but with the two reputable sources being in accord with each other, the article can exist as a stub pending enhancement in due course. Steps are currently being taken to investigate local sources if possible. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:41, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
• Strong keep pending continuing discussion - and wait, whether a second source adds further information or not, surely the fact that the two sources match up is sufficient proof of their... truthiness? Rather than send to AfD every single cricketer with a single first-class appearance under his belt, surely it's better to discuss matters like this in an open environment rather than cherry-picking random articles to delete..?
  At the end of the day, a discussion as to whether having a single, simple guideline to follow as to the inclusion of first-class cricketers is appropriate, is not something that a single AfD debate can fix - otherwise we may as well have the same debate in thousands of potential AfD debates based on the same criteria..? Here and now is neither the time nor the place.
  If this further discussion brings up new issues, let's further discuss these articles then and there, but not here and now - this is beyond the scope of a single AfD. Bobo. 04:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• this is your (first) !vote. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - Jack, you will be able to think of examples right off the bat where Cricket Archive and Cricinfo disagree with each other - can you provide an example which proves that one does not directly rely on the other for sources (in the manner of the confused schoolboy copying homework from the second most confused schoolboy in the class)? Bobo. 04:35, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply. Hello again, Bobo. The one that springs immediately to mind is W. G. himself. If you compare his bio in the two sites, you will see that CA lists every first-class team he ever played for, while CI lists only six but not the United South of England Eleven (USEE) which is a massive omission in terms of his career. I have come across several lesser known players where the two sites have different statistics and if you check out matchlists, especially from early cricket, you will find differences there too. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Cheers Jack. Hopefully this is evidence enough that one does not simply copy off another and the two work based on sources provided independent of each other. Bobo. 21:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• In my view, it's silly to give any great weight to WP:NCRIC in the case of a dispute. This tiny subsection of WP:NSPORT has been edited by a small number of editors involved with WikiProject Cricket, and few others. The edits have largely been made since WP:NSPORT was promoted to a guideline, so they haven't had much community scrutiny: they've stuck because nobody has reverted them. What we fundamentally have here, as elsewhere in the encyclopaedia, is a bunch of editors with special interests deciding what rules that apply in their own topic area. That is not necessarily a bad thing in itself----interest correlates with knowledge, and it would be foolish to disregard the advice of editors who know what they're talking about----but if that kind of speciality guideline clashes with old and strong rules that enjoy widespread community consensus, then it deserves to be brushed aside. We do not need a community RFC to decide that WP:GNG and WP:BLP outweigh WP:NCRIC.

  However, there is nothing in this article that contravenes WP:BLP, and the general notability guideline is satisfied because there are two editorially independent sources. I think the WP:NCRIC concern is a total red herring and that discussion merits no more editorial time than it has already received.

  My concern in this case is that it's so obviously inappropriate to write a biography about someone about whom we know nothing. We know they're called S. Perera. We don't have a reliable source for their name, their date of birth, their country of origin, or their nationality (except insofar as we can infer it from the fact that they played cricket in Sri Lanka). We can infer that they're probably male. And we can see that they scored eleven runs and took one wicket at a cricket game in 1991. If you can believe that that desperately scant few facts belong in a separate biographical entry in Wikipedia, then I would suggest you may be taking an unusually completist approach to our coverage of cricket.—S Marshall T/C 18:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Is this the same Marshall who wrote crappy articles like Catalina Parot and List of Indian and Madagascan dinosaurs? The latter which is completly unreferenced, failing WP:V and possibly WP:GNG and the former which is the Chilean lawyer equivalent of S. Perera? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• If you think there's something wrong with those articles, feel free to nominate them at AfD.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

That went right over your head, Marshall. Nevermind. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, while we're being so frank with each other: No, it didn't. I just chose a response that would shut you down, because you know perfectly well why it's appropriate to have an article about a Chilean government minister or the dinosaurs of a particular continent. And you know perfectly well what I'm saying about this one. If you had a mind, you could improve those articles, but you couldn't improve this one, because there's nothing else you could possibly find to say.—S Marshall T/C 21:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Nice try, Marshall. Well done! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I voted for Keep at the original deletion debate and, as I've already said at this re-creation's talk page, I'm a little uncomfortable at being here again – but it would be hypocritical of me not to vote this way again. Two things in what User:S Marshall says above seem inconsistent. He says that WP:NCRIC is outweighed by both WP:GNG and WP:BLP, but then goes on to say that "there is nothing in this article that contravenes WP:BLP, and the general notability guideline is satisfied because there are two editorially independent sources". So why is he still wanting to delete? He also says that "it would be foolish to disregard the advice of editors who know what they're talking about": in this case, those editors have decided that the benchmark for notability for cricketers is an appearance in a major match (there are similar benchmarks for other sports, such as baseball and football, I believe), and this cricketer, however little we know about him, passes that criterion.

  He also says that the cricket project is taking an "unusually completist" approach: well, yes, it is and it always has, and some of us are rather proud of that. In my previous vote in the previous deletion discussions, I wrote: "I don't disagree that this is an unsatisfactory article. But WP wants to be an encyclopedia, and a feature of an encyclopedia is comprehensive coverage. WP:CRIC has over many years interpreted this to mean that notable teams playing at the required standard for notability are ipso facto composed of notable players, and this comprehensive rule has the effect of simplifying debate about notability for cricketers. It doesn't mean, at the individual article level, that all articles are adequate, and in some cases like this one they are probably not capable of much improvement; but it does mean that the Cricket Project can claim to have a comprehensive (i.e. encyclopedic) coverage. If you wish to change that, I think you should come up with an alternative ruling that can be applied simply and that you should discuss it at WT:CRIC where the cricket people hang out, because this is a fundamental change to the way one of WP's more active communities has been operating over a long period." I note that WP's own definition of "encyclopedia" makes reference, in its opening paragraph, to comprehensiveness. WP is a long-haul project: I've been here 10 years and the two other "Keep" voters above have been here for a similar amount of time, and we're reasonably close to completing the task of an article for every English cricketer who played in a major match. It may take us another 10 years to complete the Sri Lankan cricketers, but by then I would expect on-line sources to enable us to improve the article on S Perera which is already there in outline form waiting for us. Johnlp (talk) 19:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Fundamentally, my position is that to have an article on S. Perera is technically within our rules but falls below our normal community standards.—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• And in what way does that position differ from WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Johnlp (talk) 19:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Okay, if you want to put it that way, I "don't like" that we've got a biography of a person whose name we aren't sure of and whose only lifetime accomplishment was to score eleven runs and a wicket in a cricket match in Sri Lanka in 1991.—S Marshall T/C 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• I don't disagree that it's not satisfactory. But your response is to delete it, whereas mine is to see it as part of a long-term process and project and capable of improvement. And there, I fear, we shall continue to disagree. Johnlp (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - this whole AfD debate appears to be based on the difference between applying WP:ONESOURCE and not. So this article falls below "normal community standards"? Wikipedia itself says there is no such thing as a perfect article. And there never will be. There is no such thing as "normal" and we are working on a single, simple, and easily understood guideline which puts Brian Lara at the same level as S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). Anyone who argues otherwise is flouting WP:NPOV, which states that every article be treated "fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias". Anyone who wishes to argue that the inclusion criteria is too low should be willing and able to suggest their own, based on consistency and NPOV - not their own personal opinion.
  If the debates about the appropriateness of the WP:CRIC inclusion criteria has taught us anything, it's more about the importance of WP:ONESOURCE than people's individual opinions about what makes an article "notable" or not. And it's more important to continue *these* discussions rather than batch-deleting cricketers who have a single FC appearance just for the sake of it. Bobo. 21:40, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• this would be a second !vote: indenting. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Removing this recommendation to keep as this was stated by the editor above once already. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 20:33, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete- The only sources in this article are the same ones we saw in the first AfD and the DRV. They are nothing but statistical entries, and one is a bare list of links that doesn't even mention him. There is not even enough material to determine this individual's name, or to definitely distinguish him from other people with similar names. Consensus at the previous AfD and DRV were to delete the article and this re-creation has done nothing - nothing - to address the legitimate reasons for deletion. It's astonishing that this has been permitted. Reyk _YO! 21:50, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Reply. That is absolute rubbish and you know it is. The original article, which was deleted, made no reference at all to ESPNcricinfo (CI) and only mentioned CricketArchive (CA) in an external link, not as an inline citation. This new article has CI as an additional source and both are referenced inline with considerably more information and linkage provided for the benefit of readers unfamiliar with Sri Lankan cricket. CA and CI are independent of each other and both are highly reputable and widely used on this site as well as throughout cricket writing generally. You mention the DRV and I would remind you that its result was no consensus which means we are free to revist the article and attempt to provide an improved version. As for Perera's forename and "other people with similar names", a subject expert from the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians (the ACS) has advised me that there were TWO players called S. Perera and, subject to verification, he believes he has the full name of the Old Cambrians player. The ACS is one of the most reputable sources in cricket research circles so if we can soon add that into the article's reflist, the picture will change somewhat dramatically, though frankly two reputable sources are already sufficient to show that the person meets WP:NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:05, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

And until we this claim is published, your citation is absolutely worthless. That fact is, even if we say that CA and CI are independent sources, they are still not providing significant coverage, and so the subject still fails WP:GNG. And passing WP:NCRIC doesn't make up for that. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it does. An article must meet either GNG or NCRIC, not both, though both is obviously to be preferred. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No - NCRIC is part of WP:NSPORT, which says "The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." In other words, the only reason NCRIC exists is to help us determine whether GNG is fulfilled. StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The *only sources*? Statistical entries? What kind of information would you rather? POV biographies copied from source to source to source with no respect for truth? By that metric, surely 95 percent of sources on articles from even high-profile subjects are non-permissible? Bobo. 22:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Of course other stuff exists. That's why everything within a single notability guideline is at *exactly* the same level. Because other stuff exists. Otherwise we would have just one article on every single subject. And the mere concept of that is simply ludicrous. Bobo. 08:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. NE Ent 22:20, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - just to point out, the nomination points out no criteria for which the article would be permissible to delete, and in fact gives more reasons to *keep* it than delete it... Bobo. 22:24, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Additional comment. The nominator also confirms that the article "has been re-created with new text and one additional source" which means that the statement by User:Reyk is misleading and should be ignored. Jack | ^{talk page} 22:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Not sure why ping. The reason for deletion- that there is just not enough biographical information to write an article- has not in any way been addressed by these new "sources". One of them doesn't even mention this player, and all of them are just raw database entries on two sites whose business is to collect all such statistics. Drip-feeding almost empty sources to cynically get around the wording of CSDG4 is just gamesmanship. Reyk _YO! 23:49, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I pinged you out of courtesy because you have a right to answer my criticism of you for making misleading statements. You have replied by further misrepresentation when you say one of the citations does not mention the player. Ever heard of "context"? The purpose of that citation is to confirm that Perera's team was first-class, so I have made a relevant statement within the article and provided a citation to verify it. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. This is a prime example of abuse of subject-specific notability guidelines. Playing for a team that was briefly of the right level, does not make notability. Neither does inclusion in some directories. There are no substantive sources about this player, fine gentleman though I'm sure he be. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

• Briefly at the right level? The important thing is that he was at the right level. "Briefly" doesn't come into it as per NPOV. Bobo. 23:47, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
• Every guideline is a subject-specific notability guideline, because every article relates to a specific subject. Bobo. 00:00, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Strong keep. Article complies with WP:NCRIC, a community agreed guideline. Once again we have people attempting to undermine community consensus. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 00:04, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not agree with WP:NCRIC, since it fails WP:GNG. WP:NCRIC explicitly says that articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. All the first-class appearance says that the article probably meets WP:GNG, but there is no evidence to suggest that is actually does. And it fails WP:GNG because there is no significant coverage - there are only bare statistics mentioned. StAnselm (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again you are twisting things and misrepresenting the facts. NOWHERE does NCRIC say that "articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline". The only mention of GNG in NCRIC relates to under-19 players who do not meet NCRIC but might nevertheless meet GNG in non-cricket terms. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Significant" is as subjective a word as "notable". Everything which is written down in any form of medium will have some form of writer bias based on availability of information. What makes one source more "significant" to one person may not make a source "significant" to another. That is why we have subject-specific guidelines to guide us to a single, simple, notability criterion - so that these debates can take place there rather than here. Bobo. 09:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually NCRIC clearly says it in the FAQ "No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline. Although the criteria for a given sport should be chosen to be a very reliable predictor of the availability of appropriate secondary coverage from reliable sources, there can be exceptions.". Bear in mind that although NCRIC redirects to a specific section of the sports notability guideline, it cannot be read in complete isolation from the general page. The general page clearly says that all article have to meet the GNG (as should all subject specific guidelines) and so does GNG itself. If you believe that subject specific guidelines remove the requirement that articles meet the GNG you're mistaken. As NCRIC explains, as does GNG, the subject specific guidelines are there to make things simpler when it's likely something is notable, but the sources required to meet GNG haven't been found yet. Just to be clear, they explicitly do not remove the requirement that the article is eventually able to meet the GNG.

As to how this affects this AFD, if significant effort had been put in to finding the sources needed to meet GNG and they have not been found, this would strongly point towards a delete. If there was little effort, then it seems to suggest a keep. However the fact that this has already been deleted once, and the new sources don't seem to give any indication of meeting the GNG would seem to point toward delete. If it was felt the original deletion was improper, that should have been handled with an AFD review.

If people believe they are about to find the sources which would either meet GNG or at least give fairly strong evidence it could be met, then that's great, but I don't understand why they didn't wait until they found these sources before recreating the article.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

NCRIC is part of NSPORT - see above. And so it "provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline." StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. Article passes WP:NCRIC. Too many here are wanting to delete due to do not like or too short. --MurderByDeletionism^"bang!" 00:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it seems that have not been any policy-based arguments offered for keeping the article. StAnselm (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

There have been no policy-based arguments to support deletion. You and your convenient sidekick have repeatedly tried to twist and misrepresent guidelines. Not only that, you are even contradicting the nominator. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea who my "convenient sidekick" is. And of course, "contradicting the nominator" is a terrible argument, worthy of inclusion in WP:AADD. StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for now based on GNG. There is need for a proper discussion about the NCRIC guidelines (perhaps at WT:NSPORT or WT:SPORTS or WT:N), else we will have an endless cycle of AFD - delete - recreate. There seem to be hundreds of articles with a situation similar to S. Perera (one or two matches, full name and date of birth unknown). Hence I believe a discussion at the right place can help us decide whether all these articles should be kept or not. Fenopy (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• I hope this doesn't seem overly defensive but I think it's appropriate to have the discussion before making decisions based on said discussion. Bobo. 01:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. Keep If the available sources don't even give a full name for someone active in the 1990s, the person is not notable. Argyriou (talk) 01:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Since sufficient information has been provided to show that the individual is notable(ish), I switch my !vote to keep. Argyriou (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. You mean 1991, which is 1.5 years before CricInfo existed, and 7 years before Google existed. The whole point of NCRIC/CRIN is that NOT EVERYTHING IS ONLINE and most of us don't do much more than a google search to see if someone's notable. Early 1990s Sri Lankan First Class cricket (they were only awarded First Class status a few years earlier) is probably one of the most obscure corners of games that meet NCRIC. The intention of NCRIC is that lets not argue about individual players who meet the standard, lets assume that there will be sources somewhere. And until someone has read the local Colombo press from that era, how can anyone be sure? Of course, the BLP and V requirements don't allow for contentious information to be unreferenced, and plenty of people think that GNG demands that significant coverage be added now, not later. So we are at this impasse. And, as far as I'm aware, only the recreator of this article has actually tried to contact someone in Sri Lanka to see if there are any more sources (see the thread at WT:CRICKET). The-Pope (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Correct, and the investigation has already exploded one of the myths put forward by certain people that this Perera is the same person as another one known to the two websites as a player at a different club. I am waiting for my contact to come back from holiday today. It is possible, if not probable, that the player's full name will be confirmed and other data may be reported too. It is all too easy for the likes of Anselm and Reyk to try and dismiss something because they don't like it. I fail to see how their attitude helps the readers and it certainly doesn't help those editors who are trying to build subject coverage. Surely it is obvious to anyone that not all data is immediately available and that often you have to use what you can and be patient for more. Why don't they propose the abolition of all stubs? Jack | ^{talk page} 07:55, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Recentism only works if it's actually *pro* the individual in question! We are working entirely on the information available to us. That according to the guidelines of not just cricket but every other competitive team sport, this individual is notable. Bobo. 08:49, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - It would interest me if every person who voted delete on a/any cricket-based topic which meets notability guidelines would suggest some new notability guidelines which are consistent, can be applied to any situation, and are relevant in an encyclopedia which tries, but is now attempting to fail, to cover every single notable aspect of an incredibly notable subject. And that's nothing to do with the efforts of those who are contributing to it, and everything to do with those who are attempting to destroy that notion. Is a Sri Lankan cricketer with just one first-class appearance notable to a different extent to an English cricketer with same, if the only difference we have to go by is that we *might* have the date of birth of the latter? If all this is about simply having a date of birth available, then that's rather sad - and contravenes the very point of NPOV. Bobo. 08:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Closer please note that this article's defenders are canvassing for keep votes: [1]. Reyk _YO! 09:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• I apologize if this seemed like canvassing. I was purely being courteous to a friend for considering an aspect that I hadn't considered - if you read what was written in his comment, it appears he simply put it in the wrong place and it looks more as though he intended to leave it here. Bobo. 09:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Speaking of being courteous... [2] are you sure that this is the right way to go about defending a decision - and then cowering for forgiveness? Bobo. 10:05, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• "Cowering for forgiveness" my arse. I was asked to dial down the swearing and I politely agreed to a reasonable request. It's the last time I will, because obviously making a concession out of politeness leads to opportunistic point scorers such as yourself gloating and crowing about it. I just haven't got the time or patience to indulge your brand of mendacious fuckwittery. Reyk _YO! 10:23, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• No politicians' answers please, a "yes" or "no" will do fine - since you haven't actually answered my question. Bobo. 10:25, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yeah, I'm really not going to take the bait. Nice try. Go pester someone else. Reyk _YO! 10:36, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, the comment in question certainly wasn't intended to be left here - it was made before this page was created. StAnselm (talk) 04:06, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per the comments of Jack and Johnlp. Meets the notability guidance that has been standard for sportspeople on WP. Obviously that's subject specific, because that's the consensus reached by that project to demonstrate notbilty. That's how WP works and is the same for all projects, from sportspeople, remote villages, speices of insects, etc, etc. The nominator has a perverse and quite questionable rationale of that it should be deleted as the cricket project is targeting a complete set of entries! <redacted>. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Lugnuts, I'd be grateful if you'd kindly stop the unprovoked personal attacks on me now, please and thank you.—S Marshall T/C

• Keep for the reasons given by Johnlp. However I regret the aspersions cast by one or two on the Keep side of the arguments against those who in good faith hold a different view. JH (talk page) 10:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep. May be this Old Cambrian doesn't fulfill the notoriety criterions for a dinosaurus. But it seems that we are speaking about a cricketer... and thus have to apply the cricketer's criterions. Moreover, it doesn't seem that "forgiveness my arse" and "mendacious fuckwittery" are established cricket technical expressions. Pldx1 (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• I would love to hear them in Henry Blofeld's voice though, wouldn't you? Bobo. 10:44, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete - WP:N makes it clear that meeting a subject-specific guideline (WP:NCRIC) does not guarantee that a topic will be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. This article is a stub and the fact that basic personal information such as full name cannot be sourced suggests that it will be WP:PERMASTUB. Therefore we have to consider if it would be better merged into a larger article, such as List Old Cambrians cricketers or 1991 Saravanamuttu Trophy, or redirected there. Much of the content is not subject specific, e.g. "This was played at the Tyronne Fernando Stadium in Moratuwa from 1 to 3 November 1991. Old Cambrians' opponents were the Antonians Sports Club, who won the match by 8 wickets". The remaining content can be included in other articles.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 12:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Point of order. WP:N says nothing of the sort. WP:N actually says: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right" (including WP:ATHLETE). WP:ATHLETE states in bold: The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below (including WP:NCRIC). Please do not misinterpret and thereby misrepresent what thes guidelines actually do say. The criteria clearly state that NCRIC alone is sufficient: it is GNG OR SSC. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:38, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, please note the words The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

(ec)No, that is incorrect. You are misinterpreting both WP:N and WP:ATHLETE and it is no good for you to go around calling people liars just for disagreeing with you. A rebuttable presumption is not a guarantee, and WP:ATHLETE very clearly states "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept." This could not be any clearer. WP:NCRIC does not trump the notability guideline- it defers to WP:N. At most, it helps editors decide when it is likely that sources exist- but it is still necessary that they actually do exist. At this point, after two AfDs and a DRV, there is still no substantial sourcing so it is now clear that the "rebuttable presumption of notability" has definitively been rebutted. In fact, if WP:NCRIC encourages the production of many contentless microstubs like this one, then WP:NCRIC is inadequate and should be repealed or tightened. Reyk _YO! 13:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

@BlackJack: Why do you accuse another editor of lying when the lede of WP:N states in black and white: "This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article"?--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 16:07, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete although I would also be happy with a redirect in the short term in order to preserve the article text whilst either further research continues or a wider review, taking opinions from throughout the project, of the notability guidelines for cricketers (and possibly the other sports specific criteria) takes place. My reasoning for delete is that NCRIC is being interpreted in a simplistic boolean fashion when, in cases such as this, I feel the lack of verifiability is a major factor which must be taken into consideration. WP:SPORTCRIT, the direct parent of WP:NCRIC is no where close to being met. The fact that NCRIC differs so markedly from SPORTCRIT (which mirrors the GNG so much better) as well as the simplistic boolean approach is my reasoning for thinking that there needs to be a review of NCRIC. In this specific case we essentially have a scorebook entry. This has, at some point, found it's way onto a database, possibly via a book, and then that database has found its way to CA and CI. All very well and good, and if I want a score book style entry I'll go there. Without any form of additional information to verify the identity of the individual concerned I feel that the verifiability of the article is in too much doubt for us to include within this project. This doesn't mean that other cricketers with just one first class, List A or T20 appearance will necessarily fall into the same category, just as it doesn't mean that a cricketer without an appearance in any of those types of games is necessarily non-notable and should be precluded from inclusion.

I would also note that the approach being taken to the recreation of this article a very short time after the DRV is an issue of concern. I thought long and hard before contributing to this AfD, partly as a result of that and partly because I wanted to read extensively some of the related comments. I've no doubt that there are wider issues in play here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:56, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

As I am the main author of WP:CRIN from which NCRIC is derived, I'm always happy to review its criteria and guidelines. This controversy goes a lot deeper than NCRIC, though. It is clear that there is considerable disagreement about the interpretation of WP:N, GNG and SSC. How do we resolve that? Whatever you may say about priorities, the fact is that both WP:N and ATHLETE actually say the article must satisfy either GNG or SSC, not both and not one at the expense of the other. Suggestions? Jack | ^{talk page} 14:21, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that there is a general issue around the specific sport criteria at least. Possibly in other areas. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

By the way, when you say that "a cricketer without an appearance in any of those types of games is necessarily non-notable", it does say in NCRIC that under-19 players and, by inference, other players from minor competitions, may be adjudged notable by reference to the wider GNG. We use an appearance in a major match as a benchmark for notability; anyone else has to meet GNG as they would fail NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

In practice however it seems commonplace to use NCRIC in a Boolean fashion when it comes to other players. Certainly there are two cases currently included in a bulk AfD that I tend to think pass the GNG but where it is being argued that they should be deleted simply because they don't have a FC, LA or T20 appearance. In my view a less simplistic Boolean approach would be a helpful starting point. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:11, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, just so I understand you, which AfD do you mean and which players do you think meet GNG? I personally would not argue the NCRIC only line if they meet GNG. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

I think there are arguments that can be made at WP:Articles for deletion/Nosaina Pokana Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, I respect your views there but I don't agree because Healy's press coverage is attributable to the fame of his father and similar players without famous fathers do not attract that level of coverage. This would mean that you are, in effect, using a Boolean approach yourself re GNG's insistence on multiple sources. In this case, NCRIC is a better judge because the player has not taken part in a major match (yet). Jack | ^{talk page} 09:52, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: It seems that we have reached a consensus that the article (as it currently stands) fails GNG. What we disagree about is whether that means it should be deleted or not. StAnselm (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

But if this is the case, it is hard to see why the previous consensus to delete should be ignored (or overturned). StAnselm (talk) 16:29, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Because 'outnumbered' is 'inconclusive' when the grand total number is six? Pldx1 (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, (a) that's a lot more !votes than often occurs at deletion discussions, and (b) we don't actually count votes, but weigh arguments. StAnselm (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Since we don't count the votes, a closing describing not 3/3 as outnumbered is invalid. Pldx1 (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

The emphasis was certainly on the arguments; the exact words were "the "keep" opinions are unpersuasive as well as outnumbered". In any case, it is widely conceded that the discussion did tend towards "delete". StAnselm (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: The closer of the DRV who decided its alleged consensus is the nominator in this AfD. DRVs are supposed to be closed by an independent admin assessing the policy-based arguments rather than by taking one side. This AfD nomination to delete the new article in which some concerns from the DRV are addressed suggests (at least to me) that the independence and objectivity of the DRV close is not assured. Just like the original AfD was closed by an admin who shifted position when his failure to consider NCRIC was pointed out, so has the DRV closer who kept that article deleted now shifted ground even with independent sources are provided. EdChem (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No, hang on, that's not fair at all. I closed the deletion review in good faith and without forming a preconceived opinion. I regularly visit the deletion review page and I know what my closes say, so I naturally noticed when the S. Perera link in my own close went blue. That made me think, "Hello, this material was deleted for cause. Who's re-created it again?" Then I looked, and checked the new source, and I thought, "I don't know if that source is enough to overcome the previous consensus for deletion". So I started another AfD. Then I saw that this discussion was going differently from the previous ones. That's when I started seriously thinking about the issue, and I posted a long and nuanced post here which fully acknowledged that this article is a different article from the one that was deleted, and fully acknowledged that it has another source, but I still felt it was below the community's standards. Then Lugnuts started his ad homming, which didn't exactly fill me with seasonal cheer. That's when I started arguing more forcefully that this material needs to go.—S Marshall T/C 00:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

The original AfD was closed with the closer not taking note of the guideline. When this was pointed out, he shifted ground and refused to revise his close. No consensus at an AfD leads to keep, but your no consensus rather than relist close defaults to delete - the outcome you are now advocating. I can't know your thoughts or motivations which is why I wrote that circumstances suggest to me that independence is not assured. Is it unfair that I have doubts? Maybe, but admins acting on their preferences rather than as independent assessors of consensus is sadly not unknown. Also, the AfD closure whose decision you endorsed (in effect) has certainly shown a willingness to act unilaterally and to refuse to consider the possibility of error, which might (unfairly) influence my suspicions here. I saw the DRV close as being cited as widely endorsing the deletion, a characterization I found difficult to swallow, and I noted that questions can be raised. There are certainly issues with articles like this, but for me, deleting articles rather than holding a discussion on NCRIC is the wrong approach. Recreating the article can also be taken as provocative, I agree, but taking the bait by AfDing just sets up another fight over a specific case instead of fostering a discussion of the general issue. EdChem (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen people go down that route before with overly permissive guidelines; with WP:PORNBIO, I'm particularly thinking of. It's extremely time-consuming to argue with a wikiproject's favourite guideline and I'm just not that invested in it. For me, the concern is about this specific case in which the community standards and expectations for articles are being subverted. Does the community really want to allow creation of a biography of a living person who we can't even unambiguously name? If that's within the rules then we're following a rule off a cliff.—S Marshall T/C 00:47, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• I can't deny that the PORNBIO thing was a mess. As I said in the DRV, there are likely print sources in Sri Lanka, just not much online. Also, undermining a guideline by trying to pick off articles one by one is hardly less time-consuming a way to pick a fight. EdChem (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete for the same reasons I argued to delete this two weeks ago. Taking a couple of steps back, the whole premise that anybody who ever played in a professional sports league is worthy of an encyclopedia article is just plain silly. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

• One of the joys of WP is that there are lots of different people with different skills and differing priorities who come together to create an encyclopedia which is, in its own definition, "a reference work or compendium holding a comprehensive summary of information". The Cricket Project has over a long period taken the view that the word "comprehensive" is important in this, whereas you seem to suggest that that view is "silly". You're entitled to your view, but why do you want to impose that on everyone? And would you apply your view to, say, Hillebrand (baseball) which is, I'm sure, justifiable as an article in terms of completing the set of major baseball players? Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Roy, if that's true, please take that up with WP:NSPORTS, for which the same is true of almost every competitive team sport. Bobo. 17:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per my comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer). IgnorantArmies (talk) 17:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. I was on the fence about this one, but following the research and expansion by Jack I think subject now meets the general notability guideline, regardless of NCRIC. Jenks24 (talk) 10:06, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the expansion - see below. StAnselm (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete: The key point is that guidelines should not be treated as binary, but should be treated as a way of thinking. I think the page does no harm, but it does no good either. A simple mention in a scorecard, which is basically all there is, is insufficient for an article. It is fine for the cricket project to aim for comprehensive coverage, but that does not mean that there needs to be an article for any cricketer who played in a first class games ever. WP:NCRIC is fine as a guideline, but I give more weight to WP:GNG. There has been no in-depth coverage of this person, and a few trivial mentions do not suffice to counter this, in my view. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 17:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - The below proposed amendment to WP:ATHLETE caused confusion on where to place the iVotes. I deleted my first posting and moved DGG's iVote to be in chronological order. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2015 (UTC) -- Jreferee (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• this is your (first) !vote. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your move. Pldx1 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposed amendment to WP:ATHLETE

• Would everyone interested in this case please refer to this proposal. It is clear that the problem we have with Perera and similar cases is that the guidelines are causing confusion. As things stand, we have no firm basis for a discussion. I daresay most of these guidelines need to be reviewed and revised but there is a clear contradiction in the opening paragraph of WP:ATHLETE. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you. Can I suggest that the FAQ at the top of that page is well worth a look. It really helps to place the sports specific notability guidelines in context and, in my view, suggests that they need to be used alongside the GNG etc... Have a read - all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:39, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

There are now two external discussions taking place: here and here. I suggest that the decision on Perera rests with the outcomes there which will address the issue of whether SNG on its own is sufficient or whether GNG is essential regardless of SNG. Perera certainly meets SNG (i.e., NCRIC in this instance) but whether he meets GNG too is questionable, unless additional sources can be confirmed (still waiting for the possible ACS input). Jack | ^{talk page} 15:26, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I support the amendment to Wikipedia:Notability (sports), but I don't think this discussion relies on it passing or failing. As was pointed out at Wikipedia talk:Notability, "there are occasions where our presumption is wrong... but those are actually extremely rare, and can be dealt with on a case by case basis". This would seem to be one of those extremely rare cases. And with this edit this becomes the deletion discussion to which I have made the most contributions ever. StAnselm (talk) 15:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Third source confirmed

• Please note that the article has been amended as information has been received from a third source. It remains possible that further verification may be forthcoming from a Sri Lankan newspaper (a primary source) but we shall have to wait and see for that. The additional information includes the player's name, date of birth and his bowling action. Curiously, it does not confirm if he batted righthanded or lefthanded, although we now know he bowled righthanded. The big surprise, to me anyway, is that he is after all "two players": he played for Old Cambrians in 1991 and then reappeared for Kurunegala in 1999 so, like the two online sources, we originally had two articles for the same player (this has happened before because the online sources rely almost entirely on scorecard data).

One point I should make is that the title should be changed to Suresh Perera (cricketer, born 1970 as there is another Suresh Perera, who played in Tests for Sri Lanka, but I will not move it while there is an AfD ongoing.

Could all contributors please look at the revised article and amend their entries as appropriate given that we now have this extra info? Thanks. Jack | ^{talk page} 17:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Where have the ACS published this information? While it is brilliant that we have it, at the moment it simply appears to be WP:OR, albeit by a member of the ACS on our behalf. WP:V says that sources have to be "reliable, third-party, [and] published". The Sri Lankan newspaper would appear, to my mind, the better source, if we can get the details. Harrias ^talk 17:55, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, that is good news. Pleasingly too, the somewhat analogous baseball player I alluded to above (Hillebrand (baseball)) has had his article somewhat tweaked by one of the participants in this discussion after being around for some years in a fairly unsatisfactory state. Johnlp (talk) 18:44, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, what is the publication? The article suggests that there is a 2015 publication called Sri Lankan cricketers. Is that correct? StAnselm (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: I have removed the addition as currently failing WP:V and therefore violating WP:BLP. This needs to be verifiable (which, of course, is not the same as verified). It needs to be in some sort of published form. Of course, it also raises the question of where our friend at ACS got the information, and whether we are able to access that as well. Of course, we don't have to access it, we only have to know where it is. StAnselm (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Comment - nothing is truly verifiable unless we were there as a witness at the time, and if we were, doesn't that contravene WP:PRIMARY? Bobo. 17:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

No, we simply need it published in a reliable source. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Question - now that we have verified this cricketer's first name, does this invalidate the original, only, and very flimsy, reason for deletion, that being that the individual's first name isn't available? And @BlackJack:, just to be persnickety, you missed a parenthesis from the player's WP link: Suresh Perera (cricketer, born 1970). Bobo. 17:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Except that we haven't verified it yet... StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - so new info becomes available which provides more information on this cricketer, but StAnselm (in favour of deletion) reverts the additional information. Am I the only one who considers this done in bad faith, simply because the new information weakens their stance? I've reverted as the user has a vested interest. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 19:42, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Please do no re-add BLP violations. Consider this your warning. StAnselm (talk) 20:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

"Consider this your warning." Perhaps you ought to lower your tone StAnselm, it's highly condescending. And perhaps you ought to leave reverting such things to other users, who aren't trying to influence an AfD outcome. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 20:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

From [[3]], it seems that User:StAnselm is a simple user, as anyone else. Pldx1 (talk) 20:58, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Once again, StAnselm is bang out of order. Screaming about BLP violations instead of waiting for me to answer the very reasonable question posed by Harrias above. StAnselm has both a caution and a final warning on his own talk page about BLP which appear to have had no effect on his arrogant attitude. He may be a "simple user" but he most certainly is condescending and his approach to this article is entirely based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT and his desire to make a WP:POINT about it. He should apologise to Bobo192 and AssociateAffiliate among others.

Right, Harrias, thank you for your question which is very pertinent because it has led me to query what the ACS have published. To cut a long story short, I understand they issued a guide to Sri Lankan cricketers several years ago (about 2005, apparently) in one of their limited edition handbooks. My contact does not have this issue as he was not a member when it was published but he is working on an up-to-date draft with the intention of having that published by the ACS in the near future. As Perera is a 20th century player, it is believed the details given were in the published guide and they will certainly form part of the new guide. As you say, however, the guide must be published not under review.

The good news is that the lady in Colombo visited the newspaper archive yesterday and has verified the information from the paper's two match reports. The second match report confirms that the Suresh Perera involved is the "former Old Cambrians player" and so, given that Old Cambrians did not have another player with the name, it is the same man in both matches despite a seven-year gap. He was a last minute replacement in the Kurunegala team due to another player being injured. The first match report mentions him as a debutant and confirms the ACS information plus the additional facts that he was "local" (i.e., to Moratuwa) and he was a student (we don't know what his job was seven years later). Sadly, we still don't know if he was RHB or LHB but that is unimportant given that he was recognised as primarily an off spinner.

I'm rather short of time at present, which is why I haven't replied to Harrias before now (StAnselm, please note, some of us are busy in reality), and I need to work out how to cite a newspaper report because I haven't done it before so please bear with me.

I suggest that StAnselm does something about his unacceptable attitude and he can start by replacing the valid information he has removed. His action breaches BLP because he is denying the player's known name. What he should have done, of course, is place an appropriate tag on the article requesting verification or refimprove. But, no, he has to make his WP:POINT and start screaming hypocritically about BLP. His attitude in reverting my inputs effectively accuses me, an editor with ten years experience, of bad faith. I am quite happy to have a tag placed on an article because that is simply asking a reasonable question, as Harrias has done here, but a wholesale revert before the question has been seen, let alone answered, is reprehensible and, as I say, bang out of order. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:17, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

A further point to illustrate StAnselm's unacceptable behaviour. Thank you to Blue Square Thing for directing me to this. In the FAQ at the top of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports), Q4 reads: "What is considered a "reasonable amount of time" to uncover appropriate sources?" The answer says: "There is no fixed rule, as it may differ in each specific case. Generally, though, since there is no fixed schedule to complete Wikipedia articles, given a reasonable expectation that sources can be found, Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find. For a contemporary sports figure in a sport that is regularly covered by national media in English, less leeway may be given". This case is about a Sri Lankan domestic cricketer active twenty years ago and, after considerable effort, the key sources about him are found in a Sinhalese language newspaper. Yet StAnselm insists on immediate deletion and anything which is known but is pending verification violates BLP. Are his actions those of a responsible editor acting in WP:AGF? Jack | ^{talk page} 09:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Erm, you can't place two templates on someone's talk page simultaneously and expect that to count as two separate warnings. Similarly, you can't play tit-for-tat revenge games with templates and expect anyone to regard them as legitimate. Anyway, we have found out in this discussion that CricInfo and CricketArchive are not reliably accurate, at least regarding obscure just-barely-first-class players, since both sites seem to have got both his career span and identity wrong. I am not inclined to trust the reported bowling and batting figures either now. If StAnselm was worried about possible BLP problems, then it turns out he was completely justified. Reyk _YO! 09:18, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Neither can you behave in such a childish way that a senior admin feels compelled to call you to order. It is true that CI and CA appear to be mistaken on this occasion because they relied only on scorecard data and in their bio pages have not tied up the connection between the two matches. No one is perfect. Data about 20th century Sri Lankan cricket is not easy to come by, as this case has demonstrated. Having said that, by pointing out that the two websites are wrong, you obviously accept that the ACS and the newspaper are right and that your previous argument about insufficent sources is invalid. So, thanks for that. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

How about you don't put words in my mouth? I haven't commented on your new sources because I haven't seen them. Instead, I relied on your admission that CI and CA were wrong. How many other obscure first class cricket players' articles are sourced predominantly to bare statistical entries on those sites? How many of these also suffer from glaring errors of fact like this one? Should the community re-evaluate whether these two sites have a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Reyk _YO! 10:32, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

@BlackJack:, I think you completely misunderstand WP:BLP policy. Perhaps you are operating with an old version in mind, from when you first joined the project. The current version says "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" (emphasis original). When this (allegedly) conflicts with a notability guideline, obviously the BLP policy takes precedence. It is ridiculous to suggest that removing the material also constitutes a BLP violation - articles do not need to contain everything about the subject that is thought to be true, but they should not contain anything that is unverifiable. Now, the fact that you now refer to a guide issued "about 2005" suggests that "Sri Lankan cricketers, 2015" is simply a made-up reference that you added to the article. Don't do that, please. StAnselm (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

The article has been updated using information I have received via an ACS contact from a Sinhalese language newspaper based in Colombo, two match reports having been cited. I am making no further comment on this AfD. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Now that this extra source material has been added, once again I ask, does this not completely invalidate the original reason for deletion, and therefore this article need be reappraised based on this data? Bobo. 14:10, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I've re-added the external links, one to CA and one to CI. This is looking like an article which needs to be completely reappraised based on the information which has come to light since the start of the AfD, as every single reason behind the original deletion rationale has been addressed. What should we do? @BlackJack: @StAnselm:? Bobo. 14:23, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, are you saying that the subject now meets the GNG, in your opinion? StAnselm (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Me? I had no doubt that it met GNG in the first place. As for right now? Significant coverage, yes. Notable sources, plural, now that a second external link has been added, yes. Independent of the subject? Yes. Two independent websites, and two independent, non-online sources. Bobo. 16:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - the irony regarding "verifiability" is the following. Nothing is technically verifiable by anyone unless we were there at the time. And if we were basing an article's information from being there at the time, this contravenes WP:PRIMARY. This being the case, there should technically be *no* articles on Wikipedia as these two guidelines completely contradict each other. Bobo. 14:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

That is not what verifiability is at all. StAnselm (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Second section

• Keep - Meets the SNG for cricketers... That's really the key thing here. I frequently go IAR with respect to the SNG for PORNBIO, as mentioned by S. Marshall above. There is a fundamental difference between a sourced, statistically-based stub about an athlete and a poorly sourced or largely unsourced BLP about a pseudonymous porn actor, however. The greater good of the encyclopedia calls for the retention of the former and the deletion of the latter, in my opinion. Your mileage may vary. Carrite (talk) 16:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• What we actually need now is the help of a Sinhalese-speaking editor who can find the article in the newspaper archives and confirm it for us. I've posted on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sri Lanka asking if anyone can help out. I think a relisting at AfD would be helpful at this point, since we've already used a lot of the allotted time, so if any uninvolved sysops are passing then I'd be grateful if they could consider that.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure that the player in the 1999 f-c match is the same one who played in 1991. CricketArchive doesn't seem to think so, having two separate player entries. In the 1991 match, he seems to have been primarily a bowler, batting well down the order. In the 1999 match, he seems to be primarily a batsman, not even bowling in the opposition first innings. Of course in over seven years his bowling could have declined and his batting improved - that has happened to many cricketers - but Perera is such a common name in Sri Lanka that unless the Sri Lankan source is clear that they are the same person I'm unconvinced. It wouldn't change my vote, though, as even befiore the second match was unearthed I voted Keep. JH (talk page) 20:37, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a cricketer directory. It's desperately trying to show notability, having details of the few, regular games he's played in which would typically not be included in more developed sports biographies. "This was played at the Tyronne Fernando Stadium from 1 to 3 November 1991. Old Cambrians' opponents were the Antonians Sports Club, who won the match by 8 wickets.", "The match was drawn.", good for him, keep this on Cricket Archive/Cricinfo type sites. TaylorMoore2 (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete Clearly an SNG cannot prevail if the article manifestly fails GNG. Short statty type records are no sufficient for a BIO. We don't even know what the S stands for. All these NCRIC based votes should be discarded. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:59, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Spartaz I assume you didn't read the article, as we do know what the S stands for, and it is on the first line of the article. In bold. Harrias ^talk 10:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

And this is one of the details that is so borderline verifiable. Does the newspaper in question identify his first name? I'm not sure, and all we have is a second- or third- (or fourth-) hand account of what the newspaper said. StAnselm (talk) 13:05, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete. I closed the previous AfD, which was contested, so instead of closing I'll comment in my capacity as an editor: if all we know about a sportsperson is statistics from match reports, as is the case here, then we simply do not have enough material for a biography. What we have is a line in a table of sports statistics, and that's the level of coverage appropriate here. In policy terms, fails WP:GNG for clear lack of substantial, reliable third-party coverage. The topic-specific notability guideline creates merely a presumption of notability; if thorough searches (as in this case) find nothing more of substance, then there is no basis for an article.  Sandstein  18:04, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
  • Sandstein Have you revisited the article since last time? There is now more than just a line in a table of sports statistics, given the local newspaper reports. It's still not much more, granted, but it is more. Harrias ^talk 10:42, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep - per WP:GNG. good sources, had a career a short one but that is not a issue.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GNG: There are sources, but not sufficient sources to pass GNG. The match reports are trivial mentions- if you want to say something about a cricket team(notable), those who play are usually mentioned. But notability is not inherited. The cricket sites mentions are trivial, too- despite giving some information. These are large databases with standard information about lots of cricket players. It is just one player, and there is not a lot of information...Neither being one of many in a statistics database nor being mentioned in passing as one of the players who played in a match one or two times makes you notable.--Müdigkeit (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
• Delete - A biography is a detailed description of a person's life that portrays a subject's experience of these life events. Basic facts like education, work, and relationships also are a part of the detailed description of a biography. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, adds a requirement that the event descriptions need to be based on reliable sources. Here, there is not enough reliable source material from which to write an article on the topic. Even without the Verifiability requirement, there is not enough source material from which to write an article on the topic. There is no source material from which to obtain a detailed description, and there are no life event or S. Perera's experiences of these life events. There's not even enough source material from which to obtain basic facts like education, work, and relationships of S. Perera. WP:GNG is clear in its requirements and, in this case, there is no multiple coverage sources that address the topic directly and in detail, even considering the recent update using information "received via an ACS contact from a Sinhalese language newspaper" noted above. Due to the lack of sufficient source material, the prior text reviewed during AfD1 and the present text is not capable of improvement to the level of being a Wikipedia article. As such, the page should be deleted. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

• this would be a second !vote: indenting. Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC). Thanks for your move.Pldx1 (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• The above proposed amendment to WP:ATHLETE caused confusion on where to place the iVotes. I deleted my first posting and moved DGG's iVote to be in chronological order. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Also, merely because a person is notable to be included within the pages of Wikipedia does not mean that there is enough source material to justify a stand alone article on the topic. The standalone article will never be detailed or complete simply because there presently does not exist enough source material to justify a stand alone article on the topic. The information on S. Perera can be included within the pages of Wikipedia, just not in a standalone article. See GNG. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:35, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep. It is established practice that reliably documented sportspeople who meet the requirements in the special notability guideline are notable, even if nothing much is known about the details of their life. Verifiability requires that the significant facts be verified, and they are. There is no requirement un Wikipedia for any article, biographical or otherwise to be detailed or complete, or that we reject articles because of the lack of knowledge of some of the routine biographical facts. Sportspeople are notable because of their sporting accomplishments, not because of where they were born or educated. Similarly in other fields.

Personally, I think our inclusion criteria for many sports are a considerably too low in some respects, and would like to see them increased. But I do not mistake my wishes for what our guidelines ought to be, for the actual accepted guidelines. And if I wanted to change them I would go the route of an RfC, not a particular AfD. I don't do that because 1/ it is not a high priority for me, and 2/I think the consensus does agree with our relative unrestrictive guidelines in this field,and when something is that well established and harmless, it's not a good idea to change it. DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep per the persuasive comments made by Johnlp --Dweller (talk) 09:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Keep per the argument put by DGG. This AfD is not the place to decide about whether there is a problem with a guideline, nor a place to remove an article because it seems unlikely to go past the stub stage. If his first class career is too short, where is the line to be drawn without starting dozens of new AfDs on edge cases? If his sources are offline and not in English, so what? As for the argument "fails WP:GNG for clear lack of substantial, reliable third-party coverage", this depends entirely on the word "substantial". Just about anything can be defended as not substantial enough which also invites more contentious AfDs. Deleting this article will lead to more avoiding of the core issue in favour of fights over individual articles; keeping this will move the debate on the guideline back to the general case, where it belongs. EdChem (talk) 11:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. The score is draw. We even have the same number of double !votes for both opinions. What could be the conclusion, except from keep ? Pldx1 (talk) 12:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• The close will be based on the deletion guideline WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, which notes "Consensus is not determined by counting heads (e.g. number of iVotes on one side vs. another), but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." -- Jreferee (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
• Another difficult issue will be how to interpret a "no consensus" result - normally this defaults to keep, but in the case of an article recently recreated after a deletion discussion, there is an argument to be made that it should default to delete. StAnselm (talk) 14:00, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Yes, given that the article was immediately recreated after a previous Delete consensus was endorsed at DRV, with just enough cosmetic changes to scrape by G4 but with no genuine attempt to fix the problems, I think it's clear that in this case no consensus should default to delete. Another problem is that the article depends entirely on two very scant sources containing exactly zero actual prose, and both of which seem to be inaccurate and unreliable. Before too much weight is given to keep votes citing NCRIC, it should be remembered that this guideline was written entirely by the Cricket wikiproject and inserted into the WP:ATHLETE subguideline with minimal discussion. Claiming it is binding on the rest of the encyclopedia is very dubious. Even if it was, SNGs at most only provide a rebuttable presumption of notability, not a guarantee, and this AfD has definitively rebutted it. Reyk _YO! 15:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know on what you base your view that www.cricketarchive.com and www.espncricinfo.com, the two main sources cited, are "inaccurate and unreliable". I've been using these sites and citing them within WP for more than 10 years, and they both provide a superb service with very high accuracy: probably in the order of 99.99%+. Moreover, in my experience, where they don't know something, as with this cricketer's first name, they give only the information that they actually have. I'd be interested to know if you have found different in your cricket researches. Johnlp (talk) 16:11, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Both of them claim this S. Perera is two different people. When you're writing a biographical article and both sources get the man's identity wrong, that's a pretty glaring error in my view. Reyk _YO! 16:19, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Both of them agree that a cricketer of this name appeared for Old Cambrians and a cricketer of this name appeared for Kurunegala Youth in first-class (major) matches. They don't know if this is one cricketer or two, but are prudently not conflating the two: their information comes direct from scorecards and reports of matches. That's not an error on their part: it's a highly reasonable position in the absence of further information which they don't, as yet, have. Both of these websites, like WP, are works in progress: if it's proved that this is one cricketer, and not two, then doubtless they will update. Do you have other instances of their "inaccurate and unreliable" status with which you might enlighten us? Johnlp (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Right. So... if they don't know if it is the same, we should write the following "S.Perera is the name of one or two cricketeers who played for Old Cambrians and Kurunegala...", which is hardly a suitable article. Even more reasons for deletion.--Müdigkeit (talk) 18:03, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No, of course not. We should write only what we can verify. Which is that a cricketer called S. Perera played for Old Cambrians... which is essentially the article as it came into this process. The title of this AfD rather gives a clue to the fact that we are talking about this specific bit of verifiable information and this single specific cricketer. Johnlp (talk) 18:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Or in other words, this article will likely be in violation of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not permanently, a WP:PERMASTUB. A good reason to delete.--Müdigkeit (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No, because as the not-quite-verified contentions above have demonstrated, there is scope for expansion and for new information to emerge when more Sri Lankan sources are available. No one is suggesting that this is the definitive finished version of this article: like much of the rest of WP, it is a work-in-progress. There is, I would reckon, considerably more scope to improve this article, given the paucity of Sri Lankan articles on WP and the likelihood of untapped sources, than there is for many other similarly small articles: for example the baseball article Hillebrand (baseball) that I cited earlier. Johnlp (talk) 19:24, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from Dweller

I note that PERMASTUB (which is a user's essay, rather than policy, but anyway) says the following:

"It is important to note that permastubs are articles that cannot be expanded. A stub – even a stub on what you see as a trivial topic – is not a permastub if there is verifiable and encyclopedic information that can be added to it. The importance of a topic is not a factor in how much can be written about it – we have Wikipedia:Featured articles on things that are obscure and strange."

...and there is no evidence that this article cannot be expanded. In fact, I expanded it slightly myself just yesterday, and I would hope that some of our Sri Lankan editors, who have access to non-English and paper sources can expand this further.

The job of this AfD is to decide if this chap is or is not notable, which can be based either on GNG or a specialist subject notability guide. The members of the Cricket WikiProject have a simple and effective guide. While we wring our hands and argue the toss over certain individuals, like those who play in youth international cricket, we all agree that anyone who demonstrably has played first-class cricket, that's cricket at the highest domestic level, is definitely notable.

This is an encyclopedia. Deleting anyone who has played first-class cricket makes this encyclopedia less encyclopedic. You may think this person's biography is a trivial topic, but that's just POV. --Dweller (talk) 11:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Well, no, we most certainly do not all agree that every first class player is automatically notable. I think I made that clear earlier, but since you weren't paying attention I'll repeat myself. NCRIC is a disputed guideline, written by the Cricket wikiproject and inserted into WP:ATHLETE with minimal discussion. It is strongly disputed whether this unduly lenient guideline is even legitimate. The fact of the matter is that this article hinges on two statistical entries that are probably inaccurate. This article fails WP:V and WP:BLP, and should be deleted, even if it just barely passes the non-binding and disputed NCRIC guideline. Reyk _YO! 11:56, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  I'm sorry, but you can't [entirely absent yourself from ten years of discussions about notability since you signed the membership list in 2006, and then claim you don't agree. --~~

  I can, in fact, do exactly that. How many people signed up to wikiprojects ages ago, and subsequently forgot all about it? I can't be the only one. No, you cannot construe the silence of an inactive member as agreement with everything the wikiproject says and does. You're constantly putting words in people's mouths, but digging up decade-old edits to win an argument today is really fucking petty, even for you. Do you have nothing better to do than poke through dusty ancient recesses of other peoples' edit histories to hunt for gotchas? Knock it off. Reyk _YO! 12:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  You just called me a "jerkass" in an edit summary and accused me of "constantly putting words in people's mouths" and being "really fucking petty". If you're desperate to find yourself at ANI, help yourself, but ad-hominem stuff doesn't belong at an AfD, or anywhere on Wikipedia. --Dweller (talk) 12:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  I stand by every word. Criticism of behavior is not a personal attack. If you don't want your behaviour criticised, you should not do things like claiming "everyone agrees" when you know they don't (because I told you so explicitly), using decade-old forgotten edits to argue that I consented to something I never knew about, and hiding behind "WAAAAAdhominem" when confronted on tactics which I consider dishonest. Treat me with respect and I'll respond in kind; play dodgy games and I'll tell you exactly what I think of that. Don't like me speaking my mind? You know the way to ANI too and you've got the right to report me for whatever you want at any venue you like- but we both know that, per WP:BOOMERANG, you dare not. Do you have anything to say about the article relying on erroneous sources and therefore failing WP:V and WP:BLP, or has this little tanty just been a deflection from the actual issue? Reyk _YO! 13:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  There are no erroneous sources and there are no BLP issues. --Dweller (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

  Both sources claim there are two S. Pereras, when it seems that there is only one. Getting a person's identity wrong in a biographical article is about the most glaring error I can imagine. Reyk _YO! 14:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Note to closer I have changed WP:NCRIC during the discussion (difflink).--Müdigkeit (talk) 12:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• I endorse Müdigkeit's change to NCRIC. Reyk _YO! 12:24, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Change reverted until there's a consensus to change it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: I have requested admin attention to this discussion, and possible closing this nearly two-week-old AfD. EdChem (talk) 13:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Can I vote here? If not, I am sorry for this vote. I am new here so do not know the rules to comment out here. I just want to say that I have seen the article. I have added a couple or so of links to the article. I think that the Old Cambrian player S. Perera might not be the same Perera as the one who played later for Kurunegala. There is no source I have been able to find to connect the two Pereras. My thought is that we should delete the sentences that contain details of the Kurunegala club. At the same time I think we should keep this article so editors like I can over the weeks check library archives of Sri Lankan papers and scholarly publications accessible to me and build this article further. Thank you and please erase my comment if I am not authorised to vote here. Xender Lourdes (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

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.