Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wenura Caldera

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. Player is outside the scope of WP:BLP1E. The fact that no sources have been added since 2009 appears to be irrelevant. Article could use expansion (If possible/sources available) but does qualify for inclusion per/passes WP:NCRIC. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wenura Caldera[edit]

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

No secondary sources since 2009. None found in 2017. Fails WP:BLP1E. Rhadow (talk) 14:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

POINT OF ORDER. Sports people are expressly outside scope of BLP1E and this is yet another misrepresentation by this nominator who has been warned. The AfD is invalid and disruptive. Jack | ^{talk page} 23:13, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Placing a bogus warning template on someone's talk page, just so you can go around everywhere to say "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED!", is poor form IMO. Reyk _YO! 07:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The warning is legitimate because of misrepresentation of guidelines and we will see if Rhadow respects BLP1E in future. If he does, then all well and good. I suggest you refrain from both WP:Wikistalking and bullshitting. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:52, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - with the greatest of respect, how is it taking you so long to find articles you don't like, decide you don't like them, and then nominate them for deletion, when they're all probably in the same categories? Bobo . 15:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has been proven, time and time again, that CI and CA are sources maintained independently of the sport and each other, so this is an outright mistruth. If you wish to argue based on the fact that you believe one match to be too low a bar, individual AfDs are not the place to do it. Bobo . 15:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nom rationale is invalid. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:CRIN. Needs the "external link" converting to an inline citation, but CricketArchive is a perfectly acceptable secondary source. Johnlp (talk) 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please forgive me. Force of habit. Once again, I point out that I created this article in 2009, and its prose content has remained entirely unchanged since then (which is the first time I've ever said that regarding an article up for AfD). As I've mentioned elsewhere, it is suspicious that the WP:IDONTLIKEIT cabal appear to have turned up eight years after this should have been made an issue. By itself I think this should render the nominations as timewasting... Bobo . 23:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- See WP:SPORTCRIT --A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published[2] non-trivial[3] secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5] The subject of this article fails. Rhadow (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple, yes. Published, yes, online like 99 percent of citations on all pages on Wikipedia. Please define "non-trivial", the word "trivial" has at least eight meanings, some of which even contradict each other... I'd be very interested in inventing a game called "Non-trivial pursuit". Reliable, yes, as has been proven over and over again and can be verified by a second independent source in almost all instances. Intellectually independent, please define. Independent of the subject, unequivocally yes, though when we're referring to sources relating to a subject, is anything independent of any subject? That's incredibly flimsy phrasing. Bobo . 23:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it as this is established by previous AfDs that bios of these players should not be all stats. I don't think we will ever have coverage from which we can write enough biography for him. Not discussed in detail by multiple sources so we can write enough without WP:OR. Name-checked only by match records in different sources which only verify him per WP:V but this still fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into a list of players by club. Clearly aggregations of raw statistics are insufficient material on which to base a biographical article. Reyk _YO! 10:58, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The article has THREE inline citations from independent reliable sources and, although there is limited information about the subject in English-language sources, WP:NEXIST applies because significant Sinhalese sources do exist and have been proven (see article footnote) to contain useful extra information. Note too that BLP1E is inapplicable to sportspeople so the nominator's rationale is invalid, especially as his other comments about "secondary sources since 2009" and "none in 2017" make no sense whatsoever. Finally, article passes WP:CRIN per Johnlp above. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:27, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional rationale for keep. Per power~enwiki at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I. Kudigame, this article qualifies as a procedural keep because it complies with a subject specific guideline (i.e., WP:CRIN) and, procedurally, a consensus cannot overturn either the three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL and the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this article clearly qualifies as valid content for a specialised almanac.

Furthermore, per DGG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.

Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | ^{talk page} 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.