T. Silva – Endorse - given the verbiage here, the amount of time this has gone unclosed, and the fact that it might be within the closer's discretion to overturn to no consensus, this might also be controversial a bit, but a keep close can still be renominated down the road. Give it some time, and if you're still convinced it should be deleted, make a convincing nomination argument. WilyD 11:26, 2 April 2021 (UTC) WilyD 11:27, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:SilkTork used wrong reasoning to close the AfD as keep. Every article should pass WP:GNG and no sport-specific guideline supersedes WP:GNG (this was established through RfC). No one refuted my argument that coverage doesn't exist (we even don't know his birth date, first name/full name then how can you expect that coverage exists) instead SilkTork considered database entry in database site like CricketArchive as coverage. Störm(talk) 23:13, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When there's a large number of similar articles that are up for deletion that all suffer from the same deficiency of sources, it takes effort to consistently make the same argument over and over again. I failed here. My argument for deletion was too short because I participated in a number of similar discussions simultaneously, but my argument wasn't that the source was paywalled - it was the fact that these articles are sourced only to scorecards or database entries, there's no significant coverage - we don't even have a first name. It's a crystal clear WP:GNG failure. I hope that clarifies my !vote and gives a little bit of a better understanding of the situation and I'll leave it up to DRV to determine the outcome. SportingFlyerT·C 23:26, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. A stretchy "keep" close sure, but not "wrong". See advice at WP:RENOM. In particular, I advise you to put more effort into the rationale of why it should be deleted despite meeting the sport-specific SNG. I consider the BLP argument weak, because I don't see BLP sensitive content. I consider the closer's argument to be correct, as no one had spoken against the SNG reason to keep, and so Rugbyfan22 (20:18, 26 February 2021) stands unrebutted. It's hard to make a WP:Supervote criticism when it was languishing after three relists already. I suggest that permastubs like this could be merged. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:28, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Based on the discussion in that AfD, this was a keep because A) The subject met the criteria for WP:NCRIC, which was declared in the AfD, and not challenged; B) It met WP:GNG because there was a reliable source (CricketArchive - "a leading online source for cricket statistics") which provided sufficient information to create the article; and C) It met WP:Notability because, per that guideline, a topic is presumed notable if it meets "either the general notability guideline (GNG) ..., or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific notability guideline (SNG)" - in this case it appears it meets both. The only arguments for deletion present in the discussion was that it "Fails WP:GNG" and the article was "functionally unsourced" because the "only link is to Cricket Archive" which requires payment. However, per WP:PAYWALL, from our Verification policy, we "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access." If the argument is that the CricketArchive source is inadequate, not because it requires payment, but because the information in that source does not directly address the subject and/or does not provide sufficient detail to create an article without using original research to fill in the gaps, then a new AfD should be started, and that argument put forward. SilkTork (talk) 02:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, no, it clearly fails WP:GNG. Cricket Archive is a statistics database. Databases are not significant coverage and we do not accept them as sources for proving sports notability. It is also the only source, and no others have been found. The only thing it shows is that he passes a sports notability guideline, one which has been heavily scrutinised recently because it's too broad and doesn't predict when a player will meet GNG. All sports SNGs ultimately require GNG to be met (except maybe the Olympics one because of consensus.) If the result of this DRV is that there should be a new AfD, I'll accept I got lazy making the same argument over and over and send it to AfD immediately on those grounds, but there's nothing correct about your argument here. SportingFlyerT·C 12:43, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify on the "the only source" comment, while it is preferred to have multiple sources, the GNG says "There is no fixed number of sources required", so only having one source is not a deletion criteria. The delete arguments were that the article "Fails WP:GNG", but did not explain why because the article was cited to a reliable source, the source was independent of the subject, and there was significant coverage to create the article; the other two delete arguments were "functionally unsourced" because the source is behind a paywall, but - as I pointed out - this is not a deletion criteria because our Verifiability policy allows sources behind a paywall. Based on the discussion in front of me I could see no valid reason for deletion, and if I had done so I could have been accused of supervoting. Given that all three delete comments were found by policy and guideline not to be valid, while the keep comment was valid and in line with existing notability guidelines, I felt that Keep was the most appropriate close. I considered a No consensus close, but for that to take place I felt I needed something of a balance of arguments, and given that all three deletes were not valid while the one keep was valid, there was no imbalance. I followed the guidance at WP:CLOSEAFD ("Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments"; at WP:NHC ("Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue"); and at WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS ("Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy"). Even at that point I did consider the possibility of a No consensus if there was evidence in the AfD that the community were determining that sources behind a paywall were no longer acceptable, or not acceptable in certain circumstances. But there was no evidence of sufficient consensus in the AfD (just three users) for WP:LOCALCONSENSUS to challenge a core policy. The issue of the sports notability guideline being recently questioned was not brought up in the AfD - the Keep comment on that point was not challenged, and the WP:N guideline is currently quite clear on the point that the sports notability guideline is acceptable. The subject, as pointed out by the keep comment, met the notability criteria of the appropriate sports notability guideline. SilkTork (talk) 15:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I note that I didn't address the "database" issue. There is no general regarding of databases as not being reliable sources. WP:SPORTCRIT does mention databases, but doesn't rule out ALL databases, just "database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases". CricketArchive has a good reputation, and is written and compiled by respected subject specialists such as Philip Bailey (statistician) who also writes for Wisden Cricketers' Almanack. SilkTork (talk) 15:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody's making the argument databases aren't reliable sources. You've taken a look at this discussion, decided that the three delete voters don't like Cricket Archive because it was paywalled, and interjected your own opinion. You've also decided Cricket Archive was reliable, but WP:GNG only requires reliability as a condition - the source clearly doesn't pass WP:SPORTCRIT, since Cricket Archive is a generic, wide-sweeping database, as is Sports Reference (which is clearly reliable, but doesn't demonstrate notability because their goal is to track as much as possible - contrast this with a curated database of all-stars.) The key invalidating principle here is that you've made the assumption that the delete !voters don't like a paywalled source, which literally nobody made. In short, you've come to your own conclusion here based on policies you've hand-picked, and we've ended up with a bad close for a bad discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 16:47, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it does not meet the GNG by any stretch. However, no one agreed with the nominator that this was a reason to delete. Also, the GNG does not mandate deletion, there may be a merge target, and indeed there is, Kalutara Physical Culture Club. The discussion was inadequate. Delete rationales were poor. WP:BEFORE C.4, and ATD-M were not considered. Keep, or no consensus, a delete close would have been wrong. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:37, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
weak endorse I think no consensus better represents the discussion, but I can't say the closer is clearly wrong in their reasoning and keep is likely within discretion. The problem is that I don't think there is consensus that meeting this SNG means we should/must have an article (unlike, say, WP:PROF which almost reaches that far). It instead provides guidance when we have "so-so" sources. Here we seem to have very poor sources. Not because of the paywall, but because as I understand it, the sources don't provide much detail. So I think NC more accurately represents the overall situation (local and global consensus). But the delete arguments weren't clear (are the upset about the paywall? The quality of the arguments?) and the explanation given by the closer seems reasonable. All that said, I think we'd be best served by having a better discussion in the fairly near future (much like we would with a NC outcome) once things slow down a bit (sounds like there were a ton of nominations like this). Hobit (talk) 03:23, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While I voted keep, with my view that he had played enough games to be considered notability, I can see why there were some views for delete. However for the nominator to start a review saying there was a 'clear consensus' for delete is totally incorrect. There were two votes for delete and 1 for keep yes, but these discussions are not a tally system, and personally it's slightly offensive to the closer to call it that. While perhaps no consensus would have been a better closing argument, I don't see anything wrong with it being closed as it is due to the lack of participation, likely because of the 100s of cricket articles that were going through AfD at that one time, which now following an ANI is thankfully decreasing. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse SilkTork is completely correct in evaluating the votes. "I can't see the source" is not a valid delete rationale, and as such there were zero policy-compliant supports for the deletion of the topic. It's not like WP:PAYWALL is under dispute or up for revision; it's been a Wikipedia expectation for, eh, at least 12 if not 15 years. Now, if each of them had tacked on "... and it's only one source anyways" that would have changed the strength of the argument, but it's not a closer's job to read what should have been argued to be maximally effective. Jclemens (talk) 04:25, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The closer has correctly discounted arguments which were poor or do not have a basis in policy. "Functionally unsourced" is meaningless. An article is either sourced or it is not, and this one is. Stifle (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Since everyone's taken me to task for not being specific enough with my argument (I still think "functionally unsourced" in context clearly means the only source in the article doesn't count towards notability, but whatever, and the nominator's "fails WP:GNG" is clearly a policy-compliant argument) - does anyone have an issue with immediately sending this back to AfD? SportingFlyerT·C 10:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It was a faulty nomination due to failure at WP:BEFORE#C.4. Don’t relist. Don’t renomination with arguing why not merge or redirect. Why not merge and redirect? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Because there's not really a merge target (a player for a team wouldn't typically get merged into the team page if they are not notable on their own), and as been discussed in several places before, there's absolutely no policy which claims than an AfD is defective because someone identifies a merge target. SportingFlyerT·C 11:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I will likely !vote merge and redirect. Are you denying that WP:ATD is policy? Or do you think that AfD need not respect deletion policy? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You've several times now claimed that failing to consider a merge target invalidates (or in this case makes "faulty") an AfD. This is incorrect - even if someone identifies a merge target, consensus may decide deletion still may be warranted. I've said nothing about WP:ATD. (In this case a redirect wouldn't make sense, since players rarely get discussed individually in depth on sports club pages - usually it's just the current squad list, and maybe a verified list of famous players.) SportingFlyerT·C 13:45, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, you appear to ~ three-quarters understand me. WP:AfD contains instructions, including WP:BEFORE #C.4, which if followed ensure that WP:Deletion policy is abided by, including WP:ATD, including WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R. "even if someone identifies a merge target, consensus may decide deletion still may be warranted". Absolutely. You telling me this suggests that you think I don't well know this. Checking for merge targets in the BEFORE step of AfD nominating does not mean that the discussion will not agree to not merge but delete. However, it is essential that there is a check for the merge target, and the discussion should contain evidence of consideration of every obvious merge target, and that participants decided that it should be deleted anyway. Eg, if the page is entirely inferior, inferior in content and sourcing, to the merge target, then it is better deleted than merged. The AfD is faulty if an obvious merge target was not even mentioned. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The merge page in conversation would always, in a perfect world, be List of X cricketers, should one exist. And I believe there should be one created, within decent reason, for every "placename cricket team" article which has played first-class games. People have claimed over and over again that these are unnecessary, and (mostly the same people) are now claiming, through mass AfD nomination, that they are necessary. Bobo. 01:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE C.4 only requires a nominator to consider a merge target. A merge may be neither obvious nor desired by the nominator. I don't think it's correct to say an AfD is faulty if an obvious merge target isn't mentioned, especially for AfDs with any reasonable amount of discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 01:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There is no evidence that Störm 20:07, 13 February 2021 considered the obvious merge target, and the obvious merge target invalidates his deletion argument, because the GNG requires a reading of Wikipedia:Notability#Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines. The GNG only means "delete" if there is no good merge and redirect target. An obvious merge target needs explicit rejection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In my crazy inclusionist world, were I to have enough energy or impetus to compile it (and without being presumptuous I'm the only person who would be bored enough to do so), I would make a page for every potential "Player who made their debut in the XXXX / XXXX/YY season regardless of country" article. If I filter players by names including the letter "E", for all first-class matches, during the 2020-21 season - not necessarily just debutants, I find 520 results. If I weren't so disillusioned by all of this, I would be willing to make these lists by first-class debut season, but this is no longer the case. Bobo. 01:47, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You would be well advised to read WP:LISTN. Unless the list is independently notable, lists only list bluelinks. Making inappropriate list articles to save things from deletion would quickly lead to trouble for you. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's my point. In a perfect world, both would exist - the list and all bluelinks. All lists would exist as a way of navigation. It is not me who turns bluelinks into redlinks voluntarily. So articles are just sat there with no mainbody alterations for eleven years plus? Good. They're absolutely fine as they are. Some Test cricketers' articles have been unedited in terms of mainbody text for 15 years. That's cool. I like facts. Not eleven pages' worth of other people's text to sift through. Oh. Bobo. 07:29, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have had lists of such players, including redlinks, compiled for over a decade on my own user subpages - at least since the cricket WikiProject Report was written in January 2011 - sorted by team in reverse chronological order based on debut appearance. At one point people were using them as a legitimate basis for article creation. Oh for the days when people were creating articles voluntarily instead of deleting them. Bobo. 08:06, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The closing admin's statement that "It is not disputed that the subject meets inclusion criteria" is incorrect. It isn't disputed that the subject passes WP:NCRIC, but passing NCRIC does not mean the subject meets inclusion criteria, it means that it is likely to pass inclusion criteria. The subject does ultimately have to pass the GNG (WP:NSPORT). The argument that the source provided doesn't count because it's behind a paywall is wrong, but the nominator also argued that the subject doesn't pass the GNG, and that argument was not rebutted. The one source provided is a statistics site with no actual prose devoted to the subject. The interplay between the SNGs and the GNG is complex, and Bobo192 made a reasonable argument that the SNG pass indicated that sources are likely to exist, so there are reasonable arguments on both sides. Hut 8.5 12:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Keep is a valid conclusion by the closer. I probably would have said Keep as a participant and No Consensus as a closer. The question for us is whether there was an error by the closer, and there was not. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. While "keep" may have been the 'correct' result, and while discussions are not votes, it is hard to reach a "keep" result with only one person saying "keep" in the discussion (3 delete comments, 1 keep comment, and one comment). --Enos733 (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close by SilkTork is pretty fine. The outcome of an AfD is never because of the "votes" but it is "arguments" that play the game. ─ The Aafī(talk) 16:56, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. All arguments were poor, but there was no effective rebuttal to the rationale for nomination (fails GNG). Should (probably) have been relisted. wjematherplease leave a message... 21:54, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To expand, the closer's initial response here indicates that they alone determined the CricketArchive source is sufficient for GNG in this case; and this appears to be a large part of how they arrived at keep. In addition, it seems they have judged the "functionally unsourced" (whatever this means) comments as being based on it being behind a paywall rather than it not constituting significant coverage, which apparently was the intended meaning. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:22, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - "Overturn to no consensus" implies an end to the discussion. "Endorse" implies an end to the conversation one way or another. "Continue and relist" implies a continuation of the discussion. You can't have it both ways. Conversations are allowed to end as "no consensus", when there has been an entire week to build consensus. There is no need to relist articles over and over. We are all just tired of what is going on. And that is shown in lack of participation from both sides of the argument. The point I made before about lack of participation and continually needing to relist was nothing to do with following or flouting guidelines and everything to do with pure apathy towards the situation. If a conversation needs to be relisted three times, it is clear people have lost interest. "We don't know the individual's birthdate" is not a valid argument towards or against inclusion criteria. Bobo. 23:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To imply a user of 15 years of good standing who wears the number of "hats" that SilkTork does, doesn't know what they are doing, is rude and disruptive. Bobo. 23:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm inclined to agree with User:Wjemather (which is a rare thing), it should have been no consensus, but on the basis of that the article would have been kept, so the original close was valid. StickyWicket (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Worth noting that in the past there have been instances where conversations which have finished "No consensus BLP therefore default to delete for reasons of..." whatever. Usually lack of sourcing. I'm too tired and frustrated by this issue to go and find them. That, in this case, is untrue. Bobo. 00:12, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse in line with all of the many comments above, this was another poorly argued AfD. If you want to AfD articles which pass WP:NCRIC and are well-sourced, then come up with some good reasons for doing so. The machine gun like nature of cricket AfDs, all from a single nominator, is stifling proper debate and the chance to improve articles before the discussion is finalised. I would also note that I missed this one, and if reopened as an AfD would vote to keep. DevaCat1 (talk) 15:07, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A vote which would be easily argued against, as nobody has presented a single source with GNG-qualifying significant coverage, generally held to be a requirement for sports bios. SportingFlyerT·C 15:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We're back to the perennial topic of whether for sports it is enough to meet the SNG, enough to meet the GNG, or whether it needs to meet both. I could argue forany of the three positions, and the consensus has at various times supported all of them. Personally, I think sports is a special field with its own kind of coverage, and it should go by he SNG only, with the proviso that there has to be some coverage more than statistics. The issue isn't going to be settled here, no matter which way the DR is closed. I expect to continue to see at least one DR a week on this, forever. DGG ( talk ) 23:08, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: your argument isn't supported by recent consensus, and has a flaw: if all that matters is the SNG, where do we set the bar for the SNG? Currently we have a cricket SNG which is clearly not calibrated to the GNG, and a WikiProject generally defending these unsourceable stubs from deletion on the grounds that they pass the SNG (several of the project participants have endorsed the keep, even though it should be at least relatively clear the closer misinterpreted their close by assuming analysis which did not exist in the discussion.) SportingFlyerT·C 23:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
my argument is that there is not any consistent consensus , recent or otherwise. I therefore did not !vote. I'm not trying to be an obsacle. I agree that where to set the SNG has always been a problem also, in essentially every area; thats why the GNG looks attractive, until one realizes that every one of its words can be interpreted however one pleases. DGG ( talk ) 02:27, 20 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't the AfD all over again. This is the review of the discussion to see if the discussion had consensus. No proper objections were raised bar WP:PAYWALL. Barely anyone responded to the AfD because we are, frankly, tired of our project being destroyed at whim. While our project is being overrun by people who have no interest in contributing, this will not change. Bobo. 08:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually GNG was raised by the nom to which there was no rebuttal; paywall was incorrectly inferred by the closer since no such argument was made. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:29, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If people had agreed with the point that PAYWALL was an issue - which it isn't, via guidelines - they would have noted as such on the AfD. In fact, that point was not made at all. Bobo. 09:35, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, and since paywall was not raised as an issue by anyone but the closer, and seemingly as their principal reasoning, that close is faulty. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The close is faulty or the arguments for/against AfD were faulty? There was no argument for this therefore it cannot be inferred. Bobo. 09:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The arguments weren't faulty, just poor and/or badly expressed. And yet it was inferred. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If people had provided what you consider to be "valid" concerns, they would have been given "necessary" weight. If this didn't happen, then so be it. Bobo. 10:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The numerical consensus was clearly to delete. This means that to arrive at a "keep" consensus, the "keep" arguments would have to be particularly strong. That is not the case. The only "keep" argument was WP:NCRIC, which creates only a presumption of notability. That presumption was convincingly rebutted in the AfD because it was shown that there is no coverage except match statistics of unclear reviability. WP:V and WP:BLP mandate deletion in such cases. Sandstein 10:43, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately for the current state of the project, that is why there is no such thing as numerical consensus, and that is why there cannot be justification for relisting an AfD three times or more just to get people who don't care about the goals of the project to pretend to have an opinion. Why didn't these people express their opinions at the time? Maybe they don't have opinions and are just blindly copying and pasting. I still reckon that there must be offline coverage of the Saravanamuttu Trophy somewhere. Bobo. 11:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The theories of "consensus", or "consensus decision-making" (not consensus truth-divination) is a favourite hobby of mine. I very much enjoyed discovering User:Andrewa/Types of consensus. User:Andrewa, did you miss "numerical consensus"? Is it like Wikipedia:Supermajority? If the numerical consensus can be clearly something, then logically, the definition must have clarity, but what it is if it in majority or supermajority, both of which are inconsistent with "consensus". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:02, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't miss numerical consensus. That's not consensus at all. That's the whole point.
My introduction to consensus was not as a Wikipedian but as a member of the UCA, see Uniting Church in Australia#Decision-making. And certainly not from an Australian Prime Minister who often spoke of "consensus" but meant bullying, some of it very public bullying, and some of it very private bullying. (We used to discourage bullying at Wikipedia but no longer do, sadly. But that's another issue.)
Let me give an example of how a skilled and impartial chairperson can achieve consensus. We were !voting on a motion to merge two congregations, the only two in a single parish (an unwieldy system we inherited from the messy formation of the UCA but that's another story). The chairperson said "How are we feeling? Can I have a show of cards?" There was a sea of orange (indicating support for the motion). And six blue (indicating opposition). He continued "I see only six blue cards. There are about four hundred people present who have requested cards" (he'd done his homework, and that is important) "so I propose that we now hear only from those six people." The six came to the front. After four had spoken briefly (I timed an average of three minutes, maximum four) he again said "How are we feeling now? Can I see a show of cards?"
There was a sea of blue cards, with not one orange. "I think we are now of one mind. But everyone please put down your blue cards and close your eyes. That is everyone except me. Please. Have we all done that? All eyes closed and heads down? Right. If you wish to raise an orange card you can do so now in perfect safety. Don't leave it up, just raise it so I can see it, I won't even acknowledge it until you have put it down again. This is a safe place."
"Just a few seconds more. Bear with me, this is important, and I promise we are near a decision. No more orange cards? Now is the time. (Pause.) All right, eyes open again, we have consensus. The motion is defeated unanimously."
And we were very happy with the decision. All of us. That's how it can work.
Julius Caesar once said "The wrong plan, pursued to its conclusion, will always beat the right plan, incompletely executed". That is part of why consensus works so well. Which brings us to Andrew's Principle. Enough for now I think. Andrewa (talk) 17:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting story Andrewa, though am I the only one to note that the "skilled and impartial chairperson" only allowed those opposing the motion to speak - those supporting the motion were not allowed to put their arguments forward, merely allowed to vote blindly and unseen. I much prefer the Wikipedian system where we allow consensus to build through open discussion, and we allow all parties to be heard. And if we feel that all parties have not been heard, or their arguments have not been taken into account, we have a review. That parish meeting is the sort we would have called to review, and would have relisted it for a more balanced discussion. SilkTork (talk) 09:09, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the others have read the story a bit more carefully. All parties had the opportunity to speak, and it was made a safe place for them to put their views. That's the whole point.
But an abusive chairperson can manipulate the process, and probably any other. Including here at Wikipedia. Have a read of wp:NYRM. It was a disgrace. Andrewa (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Andrewa, it may have been the reality that all parties had the opportunity to speak, but in the story you relate above only one side was asked and encouraged to speak, and the wording you quote is "so I propose that we now hear only from those six people" [my italics]. If there was a later encouragement for the other side to speak (rather than hold up their cards), you haven't mentioned it. I like the story, but there is a sense that the chairperson was publicly facilitating one side, but not the other, and guiding the parishioners toward voting for that side. SilkTork (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. I agree with Sandestein views here, there is no notable achievement and coverage to consider this Cricketer for a separate page. Sliekid (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (allow re-nomination), and delete as a second choice. It was a messy discussion, but for certain it is not a "keep". The closing statement was particularly poor, distorting the essence of the arguments: nobody really agreed "that the subject meets inclusion criteria", and nobody advocated deletion on the basis of WP:PAYWALL. On the other hand, the core argument for deletion is IMO only presented in this DRV: while Cricket Archive is a reliable source, it is just a database and does not contribute much towads GNG. No such user (talk) 13:48, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi No such user. Allow me to clarify my thinking. The first comment in the discussion was "copying from S. Devapriya"; so I took a look at it. That discussion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Devapriya) was similar, and had comments such as "it's possible he passes WP:GNG in offline sources, but right now it's referenced only to Cricket Archive" and "The sole citation is behind a paywall and makes WP:VERIFY impossible" - these comments were echoed in this AfD (by some of the same users) with the wording "functionally unsourced possible BLP (only link is to Cricket Archive.)" Functional means that something is usable. Other than being behind a paywall, the source was functional enough to provide the information needed to satisfy the relevant SNG - the only part of that source which was not functional, as had been brought up in S. Devapriya, was that the source was behind a paywall. There are arguments in this DRV that Cricket Archive is not an acceptable source because it presents the information in a statistical manner rather than in prose; but, as far as I am aware, our guidelines and policies do not disallow a reliable source because the information is not presented in prose - indeed, WP:RS says we can also use "audio, video, and multimedia materials". The only interpretation that I could see, given the information before me, was that the objection to Cricket Archive was that it is an online source behind a paywall, so cannot be easily accessed. And considering the matter again now, I'm not seeing any other viable reading of the phrase "functionally unsourced".
As regards my closing statement that "It is not disputed that the subject meets inclusion criteria". The first !vote comment is: "Keep: Has played 5 FC matches, passing him for WP:NCRIC." The following two !vote comments do not challenge or dispute this, basing their arguments on the lack of functionality of the source. Therefore, it is not disputed in the discussion that the subject meets the criteria. The delete arguments rely entirely on the assertion that the article lacks sourcing - but this is negated by the existence of the source (which is not disputed as the two delete !votes mention it). If you'd like me to respond further, please give me a ping. SilkTork (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The argument is that there's no available sourcing to pass GNG, not that the article is unsourced. I've also mentioned above that "functionally unsourced" has absolutely nothing to do with the paywall, and should be read as "the only source in the article isn't an acceptable source for notability purposes." Furthermore, the inclusion criteria are not relevant here: per WP:NSPORT, sports bios have to meet GNG. SportingFlyerT·C 21:37, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi SportingFlyer. I understand your points. If I may give you my thinking. Relevant comments for sourcing and for meeting inclusion had been brought up, so I was looking at two aspects - 1) is the article sourced (meets GNG), as that was the nominator's concern, and 2) does the article meet the subject specific inclusion criteria, as that was a claim made by the keep comment. I was satisfied that the subject specific criteria had been met according to the argument in front of me as that claim had not been refuted. And I was satisfied that GNG had been met because there was a source in the article which had been used to create the article. However there were two comments supporting the nominator's view that GNG had not been met because the source was not functional. Given the argument before me, and the related S. Devapriya argument, the not functional argument appeared to be based on inaccessibility. As that was not a valid argument by policy, I had to discount it. Your later argument that the not functional comments related to something else is certainly grounds for renominating the article for AfD and presenting those arguments more clearly, but not grounds for overturning this AfD because your later argument was not clearly presented in this AfD (the "functionally unsourced" argument is a rare one, and appears to be used in relation to Cricket Archive, where at least once the parallel argument of "behind a paywall" had been used). Academically (while I don't think it is relevant to this DRV because it wasn't brought up in the disputed AFD, it is worth discussing it briefly as you have brought it up here) I don't feel that the argument that a statistical source is not a valid source is a workable one because I'm not convinced that our policies and guidelines support that view - though, of course, I could be persuaded if diffs and evidence were brought forward. So, as far as I could see the article was functionally sourced AND met subject specific inclusion criteria. So, to emphasis, a) I was not looking JUST at the inclusion criteria, and b) that the article had a functional source meant that it did meet both GNG and NSPORT. SilkTork (talk) 18:51, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: I appreciate your response directly to me. In terms of the argument that statistical sources aren't valid, WP:SPORTCRIT says: Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. and Listings of statistics must clearly satisfy the requirement for significant coverage. I'm not entirely sure what the second sentence is supposed to mean, but the first clearly applies to Cricket Archive (the distinction here being made between say a sports database which lists everyone who played, which is what Cricket Archive is, and a sports database with higher inclusion standards, such as a database of only hall-of-famers - most sports databases will fall in the former category.) Put differently, the source is good enough to show WP:V for the purposes of a SNG, but not good enough as a stand-alone source to demonstrate GNG when the presumption of SNG notability gets challenged. I hope that is helpful. SportingFlyerT·C 19:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, your interpretation (explanation?) of the wording sounds reasonable to me, and if this article was relisted at AfD, and that argument used, I would assume the outcome would be consensus to delete. Academically (again, not related to this DRV, but discussing here as the matter has been raised), I would suggest rewording the guideline slightly to make the intention clearer. Or perhaps rewording to discount all databases, as I'm unclear on the distinction between the sports databases: which are regarded as worthwhile and which are not. My reading of the guideline is that it was discounting poor quality and/or non-selective databases, and that CricketArchive was not poor quality as it was curated by the respected Philip Bailey, and it was selective as it includes only information on first class cricketers, the same as would qualify for inclusion in Wikipedia. If you're saying that such a respected cricket database which has the same inclusion criteria as Wikipedia is not allowed, then I can't see what database would be allowed. It seems to make sense to me to clearly disallow all databases. If there is a database which includes only hall-of-famers, there would be other sources to support notability, so just make it simple and clear for everyone - Databases can be used to support information in an article, but not to support notability. (Incidentally and irrelevant for this discussion, but just out of interest, on my browser the information on CricketArchive was (still is) briefly visible before changing to a subscribe page, and that page can be captured and stored. It contains exactly the same information as this page: [1]. There is a little more on T. Silva here: [2] where it indicates he was the opening batsman, but was bowled out after three runs. There is other information about T. Silva available, such as in The Janashakthi Book of Sri Lanka Cricket, 1832-1996. where it says that in Nov 1991 he was caught by H. Wickremaratne for only 1 run. I would, however, broadly agree that there is so little in depth information available on him that I would !vote to delete.) SilkTork (talk) 15:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: I'm afraid you've committed a common fallacy of conflating WP:N and WP:V. On AfDs we weigh WP:N which gauges "why should the world care about what this person has done", as measured by the amount of their presence in media (and those are typically WP:SECONDARY), and that's what GNG is about. Once we establish that the person is worth noting, only thenWP:V comes into play, and then various WP:PRIMARY, WP:SECONDARY and WP:TERTIARY sources are all fair game, depending on the statements they support. But here, the AfD argument was that the subject fails GNG, i.e. it does not pass the bar of the world caring about them, not that the information presented was false or doubtful. By those criteria, Cricket Database is mainly a primary source: it be used to verify facts (the subject has played 5 cricket games at a certain level), but does not explain how that achievement is worth of anyone's attention some years later. No such user (talk) 22:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi No such user. I'd be interested to hear what gives you the impression that I conflated WP:N and WP:V. In my close I discussed both aspects - the inclusion criteria ("the subject meets inclusion criteria" "because they have played five first class cricket matches") and the sourcing ("there is a reliable source which provides this information. The argument for deletion is that the source requires payment. However, our verification policy says..."). They are related of course, in that we need sources to evidence that a subject meets the inclusion criteria (as well as sources to provide enough factual information to build an article). Sometimes (not ideally, but it is not disallowed by policy) one source will provide all the information - evidence of meeting inclusion criteria and enough information to build an article; and that is what I saw in this AfD.
In your last sentence, when you say "Cricket Database is mainly a primary source", do you mean to say "is mainly a tertiary source"? (I'm assuming that "Cricket Database" means either "CricketArchive" or "a cricket database", or possibly a conflation of the two). SilkTork (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@SilkTork: 1) But "having played five first class cricked matches" is not an universally agreed inclusion criterion; even WP:NCRIC specifies that A cricket figure is presumed notable; WP:GNG is regarded the golden standard, and this subject seems to fail it. 2) The argument for deletion is that the source requires payment. – You keep repeating that, but it wasn't an argument put forward this AfD; it was argued by Blue Riband in Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/S._Devapriya, who did not participate here. Here, the two posters used the phrase functionally unsourced, which they clarified above as only source in the article doesn't count towards notability. I understand that it was unclear at the time of AfD closure, but on the other hand nothing seems to suggest your interpretation. 3) Yes, I meant "CricketArchive", which is a database of cricket results; whoever has played in a match above a certain level will be recorded there, so we can verify they exist (and in my view those records make it WP:PRIMARY). No other source has been presented to even scratch the surface GNG. No such user (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying that No such user. As I say above to SportingFlyer, I understand the arguments made in this DRV regarding the status of CricketArchive as a source not appropriate for assessing notability. My argument is that through the points made in this DRV, I understand the rationale behind the desire to delete the T. Silva article and agree with them; but those arguments were not made clear in the AfD, nor in the specialist notability guideline, so I couldn't close that AfD as delete. My suggestion is that the article is resubmitted to AfD, where, with clear arguments, the article is highly likely to be deleted. Also, as the guidance upon which the AfD delete votes relied is still unclear, my suggestion is that the wording should unambiguously disallow all database sites - as currently written they appear to allow selective database sites, which is what CricketArchive is. SilkTork (talk) 11:53, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
A user deleted the page because he/she thought it was an article for deletion. The 2017 Klarisse de Guzman article was considered for deletion but this current version is totally new (made February 2021) and is independently written from the 2017 version. Klarisse de Guzman also passed more than one of the notability criteria for musicians/singers. Sbhpiamonte (talk) 15:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that the most recent version of the article has been deleted. It appears to have been redirected and protected, which may seem to have the same effect, but isn't the same process. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's been unprotected and the redirect undone by the protecting admin. I'm not seeing any slam-dunk sources and given the last AfD and what seems like a lack of new sources that aren't about the TV show, I sent it to AfD. Suggest we close this here and let AfD take over. Hobit (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Close as moot AfD1 was redirected, user created an entirely new article, there was an edit war over the redirect, now at AfD. Probably didn't need to edit war over the redirect, but there's nothing to review here. SportingFlyerT·C 19:40, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
