Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/K. de Silva


 * 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.  Hut 8.5  21:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

K. de Silva

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played a single match with his contribution being insufficient and has retired now the subject technically meets WP:NCRIC as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired last played the 1 match in in 1991-92  thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline and as Per this discussion subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to.NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 11:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 12:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 12:16, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 4 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee  03  15:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete - not only is the GNG clearly not met, but the CricInfo profile for a player of the same name (see here) doesn't even have them having played a first-class match (I can find no other K de Silva - and if the first initial isn't correct then, given the surname, good luck finding anything specific...). We know a name and an initial and have a single scorecard to go on. That isn't "significant coverage" in the form that we need to have. I would not be adverse, as always, for the article to be recreated if a series of sources which could show that WP:N is met could be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete- Ordinarily I would say merge into a list of Kandy cricket club players, that being the correct way to deal with raw statistical entries, but in this case the two major statistics aggregating sites disagree over whether this player was a first-class player. That means WP:V is problematic, to say nothing of notability requirements. Reyk  YO!  10:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete despite the CA page because of the uncertainty created by the incomplete CI one. Even so, in answer to the incoherent nomination, I would point out that no one says SSG supersedes GNG. They are held to be equal per the introduction to WP:GNG itself which states unequivocally: "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 WP:NOT policy". "Either...or..." means what it says and WP:NSPORTS is one of the listed SSG. Jack &#124; talk page 10:56, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - the (recent) discussion linked to in the nomination (the one) suggests that that is not the case in respect to NSPORTS and, in particular, to its sub-criteria. It suggests that arguments "must be more refined than simply citing compliance with a subguideline of WP:NSPORTS". Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, ha. So you are saying that "suggests" takes precedence over "states"; that a "suggestion" from a discussion involving perhaps a dozen people takes precedence over an unequivocal statement in the introduction to WP:GNG. This illustrates how ridiculously illogical the whole stupid WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument has become. Which part of "either...or..." do you not understand? Jack &#124; talk page 17:34, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I'm saying that the close of that discussion made clear that it should not be acceptable to simply cite compliance with a subguideline of NSPORTS. That's what the close says and seems to generally reflect the consensus of that discussion (which, if I recall correctly, I didn't take part in) - a discussion which was active, I think, for a fairly long period of time. Given that that's the most recent and wide ranging formal discussion (as far as I can tell) we should probably try and respect it. There's probably a need for various notability guidelines to be adjusted to reflect things like this.
 * And I'll point out once more that the FAQ of NSPORTS says that "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them" (my emphasis). Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:29, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, two things. One is that if there is "probably a need for various notability guidelines to be adjusted to reflect things like this" you do not blithely assume that the guidelines will be changed and act as if it is a fait accompli – you work with the current guidelines until they have been changed and they currently state "either GNG or SNG" giving equal weight to both. Secondly, how the hell does an FAQ supersede the guideline itself? Who wrote the FAQ and within what consensus? The FAQ is wrong if it contradicts NSPORTS, not the other way around. Jack &#124; talk page 18:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A list of supposedly "frequently asked questions" on a neutral encyclopedia is pointless as it assumes the ignorance of those involved and serves to answer questions in an absolute way which (people are claiming) have no absolute answer even though there are absolute notability criteria to hand (which people still decide to go against because WP:IDONTLIKEIT). Sadly it's an unwinnable war for anyone attempting to compile a comprehensive encyclopedia. Bobo. 20:27, 8 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - Jack, I can't remember whether it was with Kandy YCC that we were having a debate all those years ago whether their games actually met first-class level. I have a vague recollection of it being with one specific team but I forget which one. If the inconsistency was with Kandy YCC then I am willing to accept that there is disagreement between sources. Bobo. 19:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That was Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club, Bobo. They became first-class c.1990 but are not regulars and have played relatively few matches, mostly KO tournament. Jack &#124; talk page 04:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's the badger. Sorry, memory not working. Cheers. Bobo. 06:17, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Kandy Youth Cricket Club as valid search term – Per this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. Also, I will note that less coverage has to be applied for this article to be considered notable. Also fails WP:BIO1E.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   03:55, 12 October 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.