Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) - Wikipedia
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Contrary to arguments made here, WP:CRIN is not labeled as a community-adopted guideline and therefore carries no particular weight in this discussion. Because no other arguments for keeping are made, and the arguments for deletion (most importantly, the lack of reliable sources to even identify the person) are not addressed, the "keep" opinions are unpersuasive as well as outnumbered. Sandstein 21:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- 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)
Almost identical situation to that of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), where the consensus was to delete - a solitary first class appearance, but no biographical details whatsoever; not even a first name. SageGreenRider (talk) 03:01, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous AFD. Not quite identical - this player actually made some runs - but there is no need to rehash all the arguments here. StAnselm (talk) 03:19, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Musa Talk 06:38, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per previous deletion. He could even be the same person, for all we know. 117.192.163.47 (talk) 13:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, per WP:CRIN, as a player with a first-class cricket appearance. CRIN is a simple and effective guideline; a line in the sand which is easy to apply and which solves problems. If you wish to dispute it, I suggest you come up with something that works as well, rather than an arbitrary line that could easily be equated with WP:IDONTLIKEIT. But you should do that at WT:CRIC, not here. Johnlp (talk) 16:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- CRIN is a guideline. Please see the closing comment on the related AfD Rules of thumb are precisely that and do not replace detailed examination of the article against wider inclusion criteria. In cases where an article is reasonably shown not to meet the gng than the bar is set higher and since we do not have basic details like date of birth than it seems reasonable to give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy. Thanks. SageGreenRider (talk) 02:48, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. 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. Johnlp (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm glad you agree that the article is (obviously) unsatisfactory. I don't agree that Wikipedia aims to be totally comprehensive. Quite the reverse. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection. Articles should be comprehensive but only about WP:GNG notable topics. I understand WP:ATHLETE but in this case it is extremely unlikely that difficult-to-access reliable sources have imbued notability. Mr. Perera is not notable. I think the policies are OK. They just need to be applied on a case-by-case basis. Cheers! BTW, I love cricket. Played it from elementary school to grad school. SageGreenRider (talk) 02:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. 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. Johnlp (talk) 09:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reluctant Delete, Google search only brings up trivial statistics pages, no evidence that this player meets WP:GNG. WP:CRIN is all well and good, and I wish we could have a simple line in the sand that is easy to apply, but GNG is the requirement that needs to be met; CRIN is only a guideline which suggests when it might be met. Harrias talk 16:43, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - There are four more similar articles with AfD at the moment Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manzoor (Delhi cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Farook (Saurashtra cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mehta (Uttar Pradesh cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narain (Madhya Pradesh cricketer). SageGreenRider (talk) 20:17, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per John's rationale. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 11:17, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. My argument to delete is based entirely on the fact that we can't even tell for sure if S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and this article refer to the same person. If we know so little about the subject that we can't even answer that question, then clearly we don't have enough for an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 5 December 2015 (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.