Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake


 * 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 no consensus and recommend the proposed RfC. I do note, however, that Notability (sports) states clearly that standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline., which is already being discussed. ansh 666 01:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

C. Sandanayake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails GNG, relies on routine statistical coverage in Cricinfo and CricketArchive. Per this RfC, SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. Dee 03  15:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reason:


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. L3X1  (distænt write)  15:57, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - thank you at least for bundling these rather than treating them separately. There's no point arguing individual names if it's felt that they all (by whatever "policy"/"guideline" you wish to choose/invent) fall short of WP standards rather than separately. I still personally believe that discussion was one of the messiest, most hacked-together discussions I've ever seen on Wikipedia and the fact that anyone draws consensus from this discussion is nothing short of deceptive to the aims of the encyclopedia. But... you know. The fact that such a solution is pussy-footed around without being an absolute is the precise prognosis and diagnosis of the problem and is indicative of the disgusting nature of this whole business.
 * I have no business voting here. WP:CRIC is already being destroyed beyond all recognition. What's the harm in doing so further? Bobo. 16:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per Notability,
 * 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; and
 * It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
 * Whether or not these articles meet GNG is irrelevant, as they meet the SSG, as specified by our overarching notability guideline. Harrias  talk 18:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The subject specific guideline in this case is just plain absurd, giving notability to a person who appeared in one game at some time, when in academics for example even being a tenure-holding professor who has had multiple books published by top university presses does not grant notability. For example I have been debating creating an article on Carl J. Christensen, who was dean of the College of Mines and Mineral Technology at the University of Utah and later Director of the Engineering Expereiment Station at the University of Utah. He was before joining the University of Utah factuly in 1946 (and taking up the post of dean) a researcher at Bell Labs, involved in developing SONAR. Christensen was the first dean of that college at the University of Utah. I am still weighing if there is enough to show he is notable. My main point is that the notability threshold we have for cricket is just unworkably too low. I think it is too low for several other sports as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If the policy is wrong, that needs discussing elsewhere. Harrias  talk 13:08, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Guidelines", with respect Harrias, not "policy", but in principle I agree with you. The fact that GNG is as much a "guideline" as CRIN is apparently irrelevant. It's a shame that all these people who claim CRIN is too low have not had enough influence on the project over the last 13 years to alter it. Bobo. 18:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete --This article has insufficient references to support the biography of a (likely) living person. A WP:BEFORE search turned up another statistical database entry, but no other coverage that would provide basic biographical details, including first name or year of birth. Rhadow (talk) 20:18, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - GNG is entirely relevant for (presumably) living persons. These BLPs fall under what Wikipedia is not, more specifically Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. All I see here are poorly-verified articles created by interpreting stat databases. As I have said in similar discussions, if there is one significant source that can address the BLP issues, I will gladly change my !vote.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 22:04, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I can get what everyone is saying. I still believe deletion is a more accurate conclusion based on our policies but an RfC to confirm that first would be beneficial. Keep for now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. All pass WP:NCRIC, which is the core SSG of which WP:CRIN is the fuller version. Johnlp (talk) 23:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong delete all It is time to scrap the junk notability guidelines for cricket players. If people have not bothered to even record an individuals first name, this shows no one has really ever felt they were notable enough to merit indepth coverage. The general notability guidelines is the minimum, area specific guidelines can tell us that we need to go beyond GNG (such as the guidelines for politicians indicating that the routine coverage all candidates get is not enough for notability), but they cannot trump the general notability guidelines. There guidelines are general and apply everywhere. This is especially true when it is just statistical database entries. Wikipedia is not a directory, and articles need to be supported by more than directory listings.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:27, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The so-called "junk notability guidelines" are identical to the "junk notability guidelines" in every single other competitive team sport on Wikipedia. Bobo. 09:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all- These articles all have the same unsurmountable problems. They're all just a few spreadsheet cells from a statistical aggregator inflated into a semblance of prose. It's not even possible to determine the full names of the subjects, and the single source has been demonstrated to be occasionally vague about unambiguously identifying the people it lists. Since most or all of these players are probably still alive, the sub-minimal sourcing is a problem from a BLP standpoint. Reyk  YO!  08:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Question. I do not understand why notability is being cited as the reason to delete when it is only a guideline and all of these short articles fail verification – a fundamental policy. To my mind, without verification there is a risk of original research – another key policy. Arguments about notability – a subjective issue – will vortex into a never-ending circle. I do not know if these articles should be kept or deleted, but I think the case as it stands is invalid. In law, it would be kicked out of court.
 * I have read the site rules about short articles and they are acceptable (as "stubs") given verification. There is a lot of steam about missing first names but that is a non-issue. Convention in cricket scorecards is to use initials and surname for non-Islamic players. Tongue in cheek, how would you add single-appearance Islamic players to your list when you cannot spot the initials? Waj (talk) 09:41, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * GNG is as much a "guideline" as any subject-specific notability guideline. Bobo. 09:56, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'd say notability is being cited as one reason to delete, with verifiability being the other. Yes, I know that it is the custom for scorers to use only initials and surname for most players, but that does not excuse the lack of coverage. It also introduces the potential for ambiguity. For instance, is it really possible to tell if the J. Bloggs who played one match for Herplingshire in 1909 is the same person as the J. Bloggs who turned out once for Derpleswick in 1915 based on two scorecards that both list just "J. Bloggs"? Or are they two different people with similar names? This problem has actually turned up, but the defenders of these wretched microstubs seem to think it doesn't matter about getting peoples' identities right in biographical articles. I think it's fair to say that CRIN no longer enjoys community support, can no longer be used to trump WP:N, and definitely cannot overrule WP:V. Reyk  YO!  09:59, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia works by quoting secondary sources. If our secondary source suggests that the two players are different, how are we to argue otherwise? Bobo. 10:02, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I do not see notability as any reason to delete because a case must rest on objectivity. Notability is highly subjective. The "J. Bloggs" example proves the necessity of verification, that is all. My argument here is that those seeking deletion must cite non-verification as their argument on the grounds that the articles as written are potentially original research. That is the only proper way, logically and logistically, to proceed as otherwise you will (if you have not already done so) descend into a pantomime argument of "oh, yes, it is notable" and "oh, no, it isn't". Please do try to be objective and if there are available sources then put them into the articles. Waj (talk) 10:19, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Biographies need to be both verifiable and notable for inclusion. I could verify the headteacher of every local secondary school in this area through a range of substantive, secondary sources. Barely any of them would, however, be notable enough to warrant inclusion in Wikipedia. In cases such as the articles under discussion here, we need to do more than verify that they exist - we need to also be persuaded that it is likely for us to be able to go beyond the mere statistics through the existence of the sorts of substantive sources necessary to build a more complete biography. That requires a degree of subjectivity, just as it does in many other cases regarding notability. The fact that articles such as these are at AfD suggests that there is likely to be some doubt about that. AfD is generally for articles which are in the "grey area" between notable and non-notable - if the subject is obviously notable then they won't be at AfD. This almost certainly brings us into the realm of subjectivity - which is why I generally need time to research and think about each case and which is why it is often entirely reasonable for perfectly sensible and rational people to arrive at slightly different conclusions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Blue Square Thing. No, your argument is cart before the horse. Verification is a fundamental policy and notability is a guideline so it is a matter of precedence. If an article has no sources, it fails verification and, subject to the time limit I have already asked about, it must be deleted for that reason. These articles are all what are called "stubs". They are very short but, potentially, could be expanded. If verification is provided and the articles do not breach any other policies, it is then and only then that notability considerations come into play by reference to guidelines such as the NCRIC and GNG. For example, let us suppose that we have verification of C. Fernando's appearance for Kurunegala against Singha in 1992–93 but then, with notability in mind, it is realised that Kurunegala were not a first-class team at that time and the match was a friendly. In that eventuality, you may now delete C. Fernando for failure to comply with the NCRIC guideline. Can you not see the essential difference here? You cannot equate a policy with a guideline. It is like saying that a white paper proposal is equal to a statute. It is ridiculous. Waj (talk) 06:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That's why I said a) that both were needed and b) that it was entirely possible for perfectly sensible people to hold different opinions about such things. Thank you for suggesting my argument "ridiculous". Unfortunately notability cannot always be objective. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly such is the problem with apparently no longer being allowed to stick by bright-line criteria. Which has become a disgusting blot on this project as a whole. Bobo. 09:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As I say, it is entirely possible for perfectly sensible people to hold different opinions about such things. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - no evidence of any notability. As per the nom. - notability is key simply because it is Wikipedia policy agreed by a consensus of editors. This is not debatable here, it is the standard by which articles are judged.  Velella  Velella Talk  10:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Velella. It is worrying that someone with such a high edit count can state: "notability is key simply because it is Wikipedia policy". It is not a policy of any kind, let alone a key policy. It is a guideline. You are entirely wrong. A policy and a guideline in any sphere of activity are two completely different concepts. To say that there is "no evidence of any notability" is meaningless. There is evidence of notability, unless all of these articles are hoaxes, in that each one says the man played first-class cricket. I play cricket but I will never play first-class cricket and so I am not notable, but I have a colleague who has played first-class and he is notable (he therefore has an article on this site). If you had said "there is no verification" your contention would make sense. Waj (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Waj comes up with a good point. How can GNG trump SSG if GNG is as much a "guideline" as SSG? This is misleading. The policy in question is NPOV - which is being severely overlooked. Bobo. 10:47, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There is that, true, but I think that is a general concern. The specific concern in these articles is verification and, from that, the risk of original research. Waj (talk) 13:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. Looking at C. Fernando, there is an external link to CricketArchive. That is a subscription site which I cannot access. It is a statistical database which culls its information from scorecards. If C. Fernando took part in a first-class match and CricketArchive has this in one of its scorecards, then the man is a notable cricketer. An external link does not, in my opinion, verify a source. It simply directs the reader to "other information" where there may not be any specific mention of C. Fernando. The site link might be about his team, for example. Waj (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all (changed to keep below) per WP:V, but these are presumed notable per WP:NCRIC. The problem isn't notability; it's verifiability. Cricket Archive allows its members to add information to its site, meaning it is not a reliable source. See here. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Rob. You are the first contributor who has recognised my argument that the problem here is verification. Notability is at best a red herring and at worst a false premise. It beggars belief that people here think a mere guideline carries more weight than a policy – and verification is fundamental among policies. The NCRIC guideline does confirm the presumed (currently) notability of these people if they DID play first-class cricket. It is therefore essential to provide appropriate sourcing in each article, as has been requested. Is there a time limit for compliance with a citation request notice? Notice was served on C. Fernando, for example, on 10 September this year. Is three months long enough or is a longer period acceptable? I assume that interested parties must be deemed to know about the notice via their watchlists and so they must be expected to take action within a reasonable time span. I am beginning to think I should vote for deletion but I would like to know if the formal notices carry a set time limit or, failing that, a "norm" established by consensus or general usage. Waj (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Membership" of CricketArchive by a cricket club means a club may make scorecards of its own matches available through the site. That is part of Cricket Archive's plans to move further into local club/grassroots cricket. At the levels where WP might be interested in teams and individuals in terms of notability (first-class, List A and T20 games), scorecards are handled by CA's own staff and fully verified before publication, and always have been. As far as WP is concerned, we can be confident that CricketArchive is a reliable source (though not, of course, infallible). Johnlp (talk) 21:20, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Does that mean Wikipedia is not a reliable source? Bobo. 18:49, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * WP itself is not a source but instead depends on other sources. Störm   (talk)  19:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Of course, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and this is documented in core Verifiability policy. I am actually surprised, you asked this question and your have been here for over a decade and an Administrator. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:24, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I know, just pointing out the irony of "reliable sources" on a source not considered reliable... Bobo. 19:30, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I believe you, but sincerely your statement above is a polar question –Ammarpad (talk) 19:42, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete all of them. Both WP:CRIC and WP:NCRIC guidelines have one important caveat. . Passing CRIN, NCRIC and even GNG only make the subject presumably notable, in plain languauage "Temporarily notable". Only existence of significant coverage about the subject in multiple independent, and reliable sources can guarantee permanent notability. All the above topic are parmanent stubs because the subject are not really notable –Ammarpad (talk) 19:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * That is not even close to how we define presumed. Presumed is defined at WP:GNG to mean that it is suitable for an article unless a reason other than notability is provided to delete it; merges, WP:NOT, etc. ~ Rob 13 Talk 19:28, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom. --Aftabuzzaman (talk) 20:10, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: See similar nomination Articles for deletion/CE Holkar. Störm   (talk)  08:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. It is reasonable to believe that these people are all living and I am advised by administration, pursuant to my questions raised above, that "the existence of an unreferenced BLP is a serious policy violation and it can be deleted on that basis alone". I would therefore support the deletion option if referencing had not been done. I am not qualified to comment on notability.
 * If I might make a suggestion about this sort of article, would it not be better to have a line about the player in a club list? For example, there are lists of all players for English county clubs which state name and years of activity. For a one-off player, why not expand his line in the club list to say he only played in one match, which was against Anyshire in 1999, and he scored x runs? Waj (talk) 09:43, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. In the light of the comments by User:Wajidshahzeed, I have provided three inline citations for each of these seven first-class cricketers; two relate to the CricketArchive site which is behind a paywall, but the third relates to the free-to-view (so far) espncricinfo.com. Johnlp (talk) 10:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * This makes a difference as all the articles have verification now. I have therefore removed my deletion vote and converted the above entry to a comment. Thank you for adding the citations. Waj (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep all. I've struck my above !vote and am changing here now that has provided inline cites to a website owned by ESPN, which has a history of fact-checking. That is a WP:RS, so WP:V is now satisfied. These meet WP:NCRIC, so notability is presumed in the absence of significant reason to believe these articles violate policies other than notability. One of the delete !voters says it best when they say "It is time to scrap the junk notability guidelines for cricket players." Perhaps, but that requires strong community consensus far outside the realm of individual AfDs. If your goal is to scrap a specific notability guideline, take it to an RfC, per WP:TALKFIRST. We don't do that at an AfD of all places. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 17:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * keep Same reasons basically as Bu rob. And I find the serial lame commenting of a certain editor here to be unconstructive. L3X1 (distænt write)  18:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as articles which are (now) cited to verifiable, reliable sources. AfD is definitely not the place to "scrap...junk notability guidelines", but rather a place to work within existing ones. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Please note that the newly added citations are once again statistical profile/scorecard which fall under routine coverage and provide us with zero new information about the players from what the original source (CricketArchive) did. GNG requires significant coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail", and these articles are still a long way from satisfying the "significant coverage" criterion. Dee  03  03:08, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I second the point made by User:Dee03 and therefore suggest the low profile bios to be taken down (Delete). Also on the basis what User:Johnpacklambert said at Articles for deletion/CE Holkar: "If people have not even bothered to record the full name of an individual, and if the coverage is only in statistical databases, there is a total and complete failure of the GNG". Well Existence ≠ Notability and It is evident that we need to revisit the WP:CRICKET bios criteria. --Saqib (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I also endorse and 's comment. The sources added are mere statistical records that shows existences and verifiability but never meet minimum guideline for biography. I wonder at some keep votes whose reason are solely based on " they are verifiable " Verifiability is never reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, millions of things are verifiable but unencyclopedic. Despite Notability being guideline it is the first in inclusion determination, then verifiability. If something is not notable even if it's verifiable it cannot be included in encyclopedia. The Verifiability policy itself makes this clear outright, WP:ONUS.–Ammarpad (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment This AfD should remain open for 14 days as I and other WP:CRIC members need time to find the sources. Will vote in the end. But clearly AfD is not a place to scrap WP:CRIN (i.e. they should start RfC). Störm   (talk)  10:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Rob13 speaks sense. If people want the wording of all NSPORT guidelines to change from "presumed" to "likely", they can start an RfC. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Has the AFD nom followed the steps in WP:BEFORE? That is, to challenge the presumption of NSPORT / NCRIC here, you must show that there are no other sources available for these athletes to meet our content policies. That includes searching local print sources. I don't see that. Just because the article is only sourced to statistics sources doesn't meant it fails the notability guideline, the AFD nominator must show that it likely would fail by reasonable absence of sources. --M asem  (t) 17:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong appeal for speedy keep - I know that the people who have proposed for an AfD may not be a member of WikiProject Cricket. One of the goals of WikiProject Cricket is to write all the cricket related biographies who have played in First-class cricket, List A cricket and T20 cricket. Just assume, a footballer playing for a club team is considered to be notable under WikiProject Football. I think just for the sake of a missing given name it could have been nominated for an AfD. Cricinfo is a reliable database similar to Soccerway, which is a football database used as a primary source in creating football biographies. Like Soccerway, people should think websites like Cricinfo and CricketArchive are also reliable cricket databases when referring or extracting information. Abishe (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh! How I enjoy these discussions. WP:BEFORE is an excuse to send others on snipe hunts. Prove there is no such thing as a purple squirrel. ... And interpretations that sound good. Speedy keep. There was no error. The nominator didn't change her mind. Nothing that qualifies it for a speedy keep, except that it sounds good. Rhadow (talk) 20:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Development. New initiatives are taking place at WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. I believe a hold should be placed on these discussions where notability is the issue but not where WP:V is in question. Regards, Waj (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Procedural keep while there are still some significant conversations going on. In order to stop our project from being completely destroyed by bored deletionists, we need to have proper conversations in the correct places, and individual AfDs are not the right place. Bobo. 17:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete All- Very difficult to establish notability and keep when we don't even know their full names.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:29, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all -- for lack of significant coverage that discusses each subject directly and in detail. Wikipedia does not aim to create an exhaustive directory of all athletes who played in a given game. In the case here, WP:SIGCOV is sorely lacking, to the point that the full names of the subjects are not known. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete all. Sources are just not adequate fro WP:Sport or WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 21 December 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep Partisan deletionism should not be a factor in considering the contributions of our content contributors as precious.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:08, 21 December 2017 (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.