Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/D. Gamit


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 14:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

D. Gamit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG, and by extension WP:N, and the coverage is routine statistical listings. The subject made a single first-class appearance and is long since retired. Technically, the subject meets WP:CRIN, but this forms a part of WP:NSPORT, which clearly states that "the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept". Per this discussion, community consensus is that "subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply." In this case, coverage is so meagre that we do not even have the players full name. Harrias talk 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Harrias  talk 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:


 * Delete all No coverage found other than statistical profiles on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. None of these cricketers meet GNG. Dee  03  08:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:02, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time. Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - it does not fail N. N clearly states or. This is the fundamental problem we are dealing with. A complete contradiction. Bobo. 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree completely with the nominator's reasons and don't really think I'd be doing anyone any good by trying to add to them. --Mkativerata (talk) 10:17, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete- more empty microstubs based solely on score cards and statistical entries, without a word of prose between them. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is not enough to support a stand-alone article. As the nominator points out, this SNG does not trump the general guideline. A merge or redirect to some suitable list article might be possible if a candidate target can be identified. Reyk YO! 12:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * What extra prose would you expect? Surely any other material would be superfluous. Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * These are purportedly biographical articles, with a person as their subjects. Biographical material, explaining this person's life and works, is the expected content of a biography. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all six articles. There is a lack of significant coverage and so they each fail the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. The articles consist of brief notes transcribed from statistical sources and there doesn't appear to be any potential for worthwhile expansion to readable narratives. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Same question. What extra prose would you expect that wouldn't be utterly superfluous? Bobo. 14:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I believe it's not so much extra prose as extra sourcing that is needed to prove that there is significant coverage of the subject in the wider media. As I understand it, and please correct me if I'm wrong, the key ruling or guideline within the GNG is "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Equally, and again correct me if I'm wrong, sport-specific criteria such as NFOOTY and the cricket one only seek to establish potential notability within the scope of the sport itself and that can then be used as a qualifier for GNG consideration (obviously some sporting subjects could achieve GNG without meeting any sport-specific criteria). It is the GNG that counts because you cannot write an article (and by that I mean article, not brief notes) unless there are adequate sources available. You cannot transcribe statistical data into brief notes and call that an article. I would not be against the statistical data being used in a relevant list, subject to sourcing. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We have demonstrated over and over that those who compile Cricket Archive and Cricinfo are independent of the subject - and of each other. As for "the media", and i'm speaking entirely tongue-in-cheek here, I trust the media now a lot less than I used to! ;) Bobo. 15:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Looking at S. K. Desai, as I have a friend of that name, there are no citations in the article which has four short sentences only. The inference is that the information came from the Cricket Archive site, which you mention above, because it is given as an external link. That site is paywalled and so I can't access it but I'm reliably informed that it is the cricketing equivalent of Soccerbase except that it is not professionally run. Received wisdom is that Cricket Archive is self-published by a private club or society of some sort, so it's like an "in-house" publication, same as an online parish magazine or whatever. Cricinfo, of course, is run by ESPN and it does articles as well as statistics so no problem with that, but this Cricket Archive site looks like a dubious source to me.
 * (Please forgive me, because this reply is to this part of the post I've re-indented slightly). I missed this comment, sorry. Back in 2009 when this article was first created, I created about eight zillion articles like this and, as was the custom at the time, I put external links on the bottom rather than inline citations. We'd be quoting basically the same information and the same sources. And even if the article did have "narrative", we'd be quoting from exactly the same sources as we would without. My simple answer when a situation like that is easily fixable, by virtue of WP:SOFIXIT. The fact that these articles are being deleted in spite of these external links upsets me greatly - as there are hundreds which are missing such links, as I've outlined elsewhere. Bobo. 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know much, much more about football than about cricket but, even though Soccerbase is a professional setup, I would not support an article based entirely on stats lifted from Soccerbase. An article, almost by definition, must contain narrative and a good article must have a flow of narrative. You do not get narrative from a statistical site that gives an incomplete name, as recorded on a scorecard, and tells you that he played in one match and didn't score a run, which is the sum total of Mr Desai's career.
 * You mentioned fifteen years earlier and that is about the time I've been a reader of Wikipedia. Given a busy career, I only made edits when I saw something that needed correcting or, occasionally, expanding. I didn't become a member till after I retired end of last year. While I was primarily a reader, I used to hate it whenever I followed up a Google search and found something like S. K. Desai. Sorry, but it isn't an article. It is a transcription of raw statistical data that just doesn't pass muster and is indefensible. The GNG is a good principle and it's right. These NFOOTY variations are okay up to a point but that point is potential qualification for GNG; and potential is never certain, only potential. Apologies for the length of this reply. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I can say very little other than the fact that it saddens me not only that GNG exists but that notability guidelines are contradicted on WP namespace pages themselves.
 * My argument throughout all of this is the same argument as that of a certain founder of this site. Wikipedia is the sum of all human knowledge. Not "all human knowledge except for that which other people find offensive". And that is what I've been attempting to do all along. Censoring information because we don't like it is morally wrong. Bobo. 22:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * You are not addressing the documenting the person in-depth part. Uncle G (talk) 17:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

existence with verifiability is one thing, notability is an other. I ran searches for two of the subjects; all I could get is stats, or the websites that cover everything related to cricket. It doesnt establish notability. I will cast my vote soon (in a few hours) for these bundled AfDs (after running searches for the lot of dozen players or so), and most probably it is going to be a delete. — usernamekiran (talk)  06:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to the relevant team category, for example, P. Balsara should be redirected to Category:Gujarat cricketers, ect, ect. StickyWicket (talk) 15:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Hard to direct to a category. If there is an article List of Gujarat cricketers, then if people so desire, they can redirect it there, surely... *rifles around Wikipedia* There is, and nobody keeps it updated. On what basis these list articles were created in the first place, and how the information was selectively chosen, I've no idea... Bobo. 15:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. That page should be refashioned to something like List of English cricketers (1787–1825) due to the success of the plan to merge hundreds of permastubs into there. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 22:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all none come even close to meeting the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Gujarat cricketers. I know this is an incomplete list, but it allows the key information to be retained and can be developed when someone has time. Without more specific biographical information I doubt we're going to be able to find properly in depth sources on these chaps anytime soon - if at all. Each played just one match and we really don't know anything beyond that and a name and initials. If sources became available I would have no issue with recreating the article - by redirecting to a list that becomes easier to do. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:28, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * delete all: per my comment above. Existence with verification is one thing, and notability is other. These players fail WP:GNG big time. Even if the subject passes some subject specific guideline, it doesnt mean we must have an article on it. All the coverage I could find came from the websites that try to cover everything n anything related to cricket, this doesnt establish notability. And due to the lack of persistent significant coverage, we can delete the articles. — usernamekiran (talk)  06:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 20:29, 14 August 2019 (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.