Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dharmasdrasinhji


 * 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. Clear consensus to delete. I would encourage to tone it down a bit with the accusations of lying.Making mistakes is human and AGF is expected from all editors, especially sysops. Randykitty (talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Dharmasdrasinhji

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not meet GNG. Only statistical profiles and a scorecard found on Cricinfo and CricketArchive. I could not even find this name in Saurashtra Cricket Association database (http://www.saucricket.com/MenPlayers/Detail?PlayerName=dharmasdrasinhji). Dee 03  08:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Dee  03  08:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 08:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment he does appear in the database: here, but it reveals no further information, and remains a bare statistical profile. Harrias  talk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * There you go, Dee. Now not only are we trying to censor information, but we are lying in the process of doing so. The sad state of Wikipedia. Bobo. 10:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Come on, you're better than that. I'm confident that searched in good faith, but didn't think to split the name. I only found it by trawling through manually.  Harrias  talk 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Please tell me you can at least understand my frustration. I've been working my tuchis off for 15 years only for people to come along and say my work is unacceptable. This is why I'm upset. Bobo. 10:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Don't accuse me of lying. I input the exact name provided by you in the article and got zero results on the Saurashtra website. I was searching that site only hoping to find this person's full name as I had just found another Saurashtra cricketer's first name there. Now even if this cricketer's name is found (in a different form) on some other statistical website, it does not change the fact that he does not meet GNG. Dee  03  10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Although he meets WP:CRIN, that is only a rule of thumb to suggest whether a player will meet WP:N. It is clear that based on the sources we have, and those that can be found from a Google search, that there is only routine coverage of this player, forming a bare statistical listing. Lacking significant coverage, this subject does not meet the WP:GNG. Harrias  talk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * He does meet N. This is the whole point. N states "or". Bobo. 10:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does. However, while some SSGs such as WP:PROF state that they are independent and "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline", WP:NSPORT and by extension WP:CRIN are not an alternative, as confirmed by community consensus in this discussion. Harrias  talk 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Then you are lying too. Well done. Lying has got this whole project and this whole debate where it is. What a sad state of affairs. Bobo. 10:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * "CRIN is just a rule of thumb which suggests whether a player will meet N". CRIN is just as much a "guideline" as N. As long as N states "or", the two guidelines are of equal footing. Bobo. 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not in the slightest no, your understanding is flawed. Harrias  talk 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I know that. I was just pointing out the irony that both were of equal footing and yet one is given more credence than the other even though N clearly states or. Bobo. 10:44, 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 - I have a universe to attend to. I may be back. I may not... Bobo. 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete- another virtually empty article about an obscure cricketer, full name unknown, based on pure stats databases containing not a single word of prose. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article. A merge might be possible if there is a good target article. Calling people liars merely for disagreeing isn't acceptable behaviour. Reyk YO! 12:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * A claim was made. It was immediately proven to be false. How much more information do you want in the article? Any further information would be superfluous and unnecessary. Bobo. 14:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. It consists of brief notes transcribed from a statistical source and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion to a readable narrative. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable criketeer who does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to List of Saurashtra cricketers - this seems better than deleting and the incomplete list can be worked on at some point I'm sure. The lack of biographical information and single known match suggest very strongly that suitable sources for a standalone article are unlikely to be provided in the foreseeable future. If they are then we can create the article easily enough. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:12, 9 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 ) 20:24, 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.