Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna


 * 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.  A  Train talk 09:38, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

L. Dinaparna

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This biography of a living person (probably) is insufficiently referenced. If a single reference to a paywall website is sufficient, then we should simply reference the website once, because WP adds no value. There is insufficient information on the page to determine notability; we don't even know the person's first name and haven't since 2009. I understand WP:NODEADLINE. In this case it seems to mean NEVER. Rhadow (talk) 21:47, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.  M assiveYR   ♠  21:53, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm sure there are still thousands of cricketing articles with just a link to Cricket Archive and no link to Cricinfo. This is an easily rectifiable problem by anyone who knows the first thing about cricket and I have now added a link to Cricinfo as well. Since this is the only issue raised by Rhadow, I suggest the sole complaint about WP's inclusion of the article is rendered null and void.
 * Yes, all cricket articles need now to contain a link to Cricinfo, but this is a gradual and methodical task. Bobo. 22:49, 30 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - also, as per not knowing the cricketer's first name, there are once again hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of this on Wikipedia, and if this is being used as a reason for nominating the article for deletion, I suggest the same is done to the other articles which match this fact, in spite of meeting painfully simple-to-understand (although, as we've learnt, impossible, contradictory, and meaningless to implement) criteria. Bobo. 23:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - Statistics for Sri Lankan cricketers with surnames beginning with A:
 * Total: 56
 * Link to both CA and CI: 18
 * One external link to either CA or CI (but not both): 35
 * No external links: 2
 * Cricketers we don't know the first name of: 6

Once again, just as with Tom Cranston and S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), it is evident that all of these problems are either meaningless, inconsistent, or addressable. Bobo. 23:23, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a single appararance that did not provide enough coverage for us to even know the full name of someone, especially within the last 30 years, is just not enough to show notability. If people think it is, than cricket notability has no connection with reality. Sports notability should be set at a level where the people are likely to have coverage at a general notability guideline level, when we do not know the full name or any other details, we lack this coverage. No widespread coverage of the person with little details either, so we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is the same tired old argument we have seen over and over again and it is just as invalid as ever. WP:GNG begins by saying: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if (1) 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 (2) it is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy". The emphasis is mine. "Either...or..." means what it says and WP:NSPORTS is one of the SSGs listed. Cricket notability is represented at WP:NSPORTS by WP:NCRIC which is a summary of the full cricket specific guideline WP:CRIN. Like WP:NFOOTY, WP:NBASE and others, the key rule is that a player must have made at least ONE top-level appearance for notability. As for not knowing the full name, the man is Sri Lankan and coverage of that country's sport in English language publications is limited; GNG makes due allowance for this and it is why we have WP:NODEADLINE. This nomination is yet another complete waste of everybody's time. Jack &#124; talk page 09:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Further comment. To be fair, it would help if articles like this were created according to WP:MOS, WP:CITE, etc. I've just carried out what amounts to a complete rewrite including the predictable old chore of placing the sources into inline citations where they belong – NOT in a bloody external link section as happens far too often. I hope the article looks better now. It has two reliable sources both cited inline and the text begins by saying that first name and date of birth are to be confirmed. Jack &#124; talk page 09:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - no point trying to argue with people who know nothing about cricket or Wikipedia guidelines on first-class cricketers who are not prepared to offer their own guidelines in return, Jack. The fact that nobody who has challenged our guidelines on cricket biography articles has been able to provide workable, consistent, NPOV alternative criteria is proof that they have practically no idea what they are talking about. Bobo. 11:37, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I apologize Jack. I am partially to blame for the over-external linking - although as you can tell by my stats, there are a lot of Sri Lankan cricketers whose articles require external linking to CA and/or CI. Not that that will stop people nominating random articles for deletion because WP:IDON'TLIKEIT... Bobo. 11:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep I have sympathy with the nomination and the deletion vote above, but this player is from the pre-internet era, playing outside the English speaking world. I am not surprised at all that we have limited sources available. In this case I think the SNG; WP:NCRIC should hold sway and suggest notability. Harrias  talk 09:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per the above. Meets WP:CRIN. If he did not, then WP:CRIC would ensure deletion. Jack &#124; talk page 09:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Assuming the player is still alive, I am not sure how the article came to the conclusion that he is a "former" cricketer; he might still be playing club-level matches. This is a BLP concern and I would rather have no article than have one which gives false/assumed information. How do you expect to find "significant coverage in reliable sources" when the first name of the player is unknown? Information like "He scored 22 runs in the first innings in which he batted, and a single run in the second innings. He held two catches in the Singha first innings." is better presented in a list (like this one) than its own article which adds zero value to the encyclopedia. Dee  03  11:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * To add individual first-class players willy-nilly to a list without including articles about every single one based on the same consistent criteria is a painfully obvious violation of WP:NPOV. Would you please suggest which of these Western Australia cricketers you mention, for example, don't deserve articles? And would you please cite the criteria to which you work? Bobo. 12:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I normally do not create an article for a cricketer until he has played a handful of matches (first-class/List A/Twenty20) because it gives enough matches to write a summary about his career which includes stuff like first hundred, first five-for, number of runs in the season, etc. Also, there would be a greater chance of finding non-statistical sources which talk about the player's personal life in detail as he has played a higher number of matches. I wouldn't comment on the Western Australia list as I am unfamiliar with how in-depth the coverage for domestic cricket in Australia is. Dee  03  12:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How many is "a handful"? "A handful" is not a statistically workable inclusion criterion... Bobo. 12:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't use a number. Firstly I try to find non-statistical sources in which the player is not just a passing mention or part of routine coverage. After I have found the sources to establish GNG, I use statistical databases like Cricinfo where his career summary can be fleshed out from using scorecards and such. Dee  03  12:58, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please don't change the subject. You claim that this cricketer needs to have played a "handful of matches" and you refuse to specify how many this is. If you want us to work to your criteria, where you want us to randomly define a point at which to create a list, you're going to have to be slightly more precise in defining your criteria for "article-hood" and "list-hood"... Bobo. 13:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I am not changing the subject. You asked what criteria I use while creating my articles, I just answered. I never said I want you to work to my criteria. If you have issues with any of my articles, feel free to take them to AFD. Dee  03  13:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you are unable to specify a criterion by which to work, may I please suggest you don't criticize our already existing criteria without providing a statistically consistent and workable solution? How many matches do you think an individual should have played before being "allowed an article"? Bobo. 13:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought this was an AFD where we discuss whether this article should be kept or not, and not an RFC where we try to come up with some inclusion criteria. Dee  03  13:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not. It's a simple question asking how many cricket matches you think constitutes a "handful". Bobo. 13:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would consider 10 or more first-class matches to be enough for the cricketer to have some secondary sources discussing about him. But this is from an Indian domestic cricket perspective. And again, I'm not suggesting we use this criteria for our project; although it would be good if we do, as it would save us from countless AFD debates about players with a single first-class appearance not meeting GNG. Dee  03  13:23, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In which case, I am looking forward to the day when you decide to nominate every first-class cricketer with fewer than ten first-class appearances for deletion. Until then, I have no interest in attempting to justify painfully easy to understand and easy to implement criteria. Bobo. 13:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't nominate them for deletion just because they have played fewer than 10 first-class matches but I would nominate them if they don't meet GNG. Some players with less than 10 first-class appearances satisfy GNG, and some with over 10 don't. I have created many articles for players with less than 10 first-class appearances but all of them meet GNG. Dee  03  13:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop contradicting yourself. And please don't respond to this, I am bored of trying to justify alteration of inclusion criteria to someone who has, on various occasions, decided to flout their own arbitrary inclusion criteria. If you wish to make a serious effort to alter notability criteria, please do so in the appropriate places. Here and now is not the time or place. Bobo. 13:35, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never suggested we change the notability criteria. I simply responded to YOUR question on how I create my articles to which I answered. I make sure the cricketer meets GNG and then look up statistical sites for career information. 10 first-class matches is usually (but not always) the number above which you can expect reliable secondary sources for the player. That is what I said above, not sure how I was contradicting myself. And yes, I no longer wish to take part in this discussion with you. Dee  03

13:49, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Words in your mouth? Please. You were the person who came up with the undefinable "handful of matches" nonsense. And the inclusion of the word "usually" in your last comment proves that even you don't believe in your woolly criteria. No further comment even needs to be made now. Bobo. 13:53, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It says he is a FORMER FIRST-CLASS CRICKETER and makes no comment about what he might be doing at his local club this afternoon. And his first-class career span is confirmed in the ESPNcricinfo source. As for adding "zero value to the encyclopedia", what is the purpose of an encyclopaedia??? To provide encyclopaedic coverage of subjects like cricket which interest millions of people worldwide. Yes, that is subject to WP:Notability and this man meets WP:CRIN so he is included. Jack &#124; talk page 11:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As for finding "significant coverage in reliable sources", we need the assistance of a Sri Lankan editor because, as I have already explained, information in English language sources about Sri Lankan cricketers is limited. As and when one of our Sri Lankan colleagues has the time to check out this player in the Sri Lankan cricket media, which is extensive but written in Sinhalese, we may be able to establish his first name and perhaps his date of birth too. This does happen on WP. You will realise this when you have acquired more experience of how the site works. Jack &#124; talk page 11:28, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Dinaparna is a former first-class cricketer in the same way as Barack Obama is a former United States President. He did it in the past. "He might" by itself implies original research outside of third-party sources which we are prohibited from including - even if they did exist. Bobo. 11:41, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Obama!? How is that point valid in this discussion? Going by that argument, is Mohammed Siraj also a former cricketer? His last first-class match came one week ago. As "he did it in the past", I'm sure you would call him a "former cricketer" too. Dee  03  12:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If you disagree with this please do as I suggest below, add "is a former". Unless you object to this too? Because who knows, he might even appear next week... Bobo. 12:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Before you get all aggressive on me, let me remind you that I just expressed my point of view which I'm entitled to even if it is different from yours. I am experienced enough to give an objective opinion on a cricket AFD, being a WP:CRIC member myself and having written hundreds of articles for the project. With respect to providing "encyclopaedic coverage of subjects like cricket which interest millions of people worldwide", this particular page got a total of 25 pageviews from 1 September to 29 September, which is less than 1 per day (not that it has anything to do with this AFD, but looks like Dinaparna isn't of interest to millions of people).
 * Lastly, when does a player become "former"? When he hasn't played for 1 year, 5 years or 10 years? What timeframe do the "more experienced" people around here use?  Dee  03  12:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * For the same reason as instead of the phrase "is a former", you may use the phrase "was a". Past tense. Basic English grammar. Are you saying one of these is more correct than the other? If so please feel free to change it, but please know that we could change it back on the same basis as the one you have just questioned. Bobo. 12:25, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If I'm not wrong, "is a former cricketer" implies that the person is alive but has stopped playing, whereas "was a" implies that the person is dead. Dee  03  12:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not exactly. Five minutes ago I was eating a chocolate bar. I haven't died... Bobo. 12:47, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Umm, you are again using the wrong argument. See Hugh Hefner which begins with "Hugh Marston Hefner (April 9, 1926 – September 27, 2017) was an American businessman, magazine publisher and playboy." and then see Glenn Beck which says "Glenn Lee Beck (born February 10, 1964) is an American talk show host, political commentator, and producer." Dee  03  12:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither Hugh Hefner nor Glenn Beck have been first-class cricketers in the past... Anyhoo, if you truly believe this man is still playing club-level matches, would you please include this in the article with necessary citations? Bobo. 12:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * See Deepak Shodhan and Mohinder Amarnath. Dee  03  13:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would be surprised if Deepak Shodhan was still playing club-level cricket given as he has been dead for 11 years... Bobo. 13:09, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My point exactly. Shodhan is dead and therefore we use "was a". Amarnath is alive and we use "is a former". The burden is not on me to prove that Dinaparna is still playing cricket, the burden is on you to prove that he is a former cricketer (as per the current wording in the article). Dee  03  13:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems odd that we are still arguing this point when it has been addressed in the article... if you wish to fix every other cricket biography in this way, please do so. Bobo. 13:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Unindenting: Please note that this user's only objection to the existence of this article is expressing whether this player is a "former cricketer". Nothing to do with the inclusion or exclusion of said article. Discussing whether this cricketer is dead or alive is an irrelevant point compared to the fact that this cricketer quite clearly meets WP:CRIN guidelines. Bobo. 13:44, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as a player who seems to have just made it past the sport-specific notability guidelines where cricket is concerned. The lack of a verified first-name is realistically a non-issue given the points raised elsewhere (a pre-internet era player from a non-Anglophone country), particularly given that there are - at the risk of making an "otherstuff" argument - articles on baseballers who are known only by their surname and appear unlikely to have the first names fleshed out either. Concerns about the "value" being added or otherwise are also irrelevant as well as being highly subjective. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 11:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - What do S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), L. Dinaparna, Tom Cranston, and R. Whitehead (MCC cricketer) have in common? Answer: They all survived absolutely fine as articles on Wikipedia which met easy to understand guidelines for eight years without anyone questioning why they should exist on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. In those eight years, we have not altered our inclusion criteria (in such a way which would render these articles inadmissible). Is it really WP:CRIC which is the problem here? Bobo. 12:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete NO evedence of Notability on this article , it fail every criteria for WBIO :Samat lib (talk) 12:36, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note - User:Samat lib is a confirmed sockpuppet as per this page. Bobo. 12:38, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And his statement is ludicrous. Re notability, passes WP:CRIN. Re WP:BIO, article cites TWO reputable sources. Jack &#124; talk page 12:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Precisely why we need to be vigilant as per the whole WP:ONESOURCE argument - which this sockpuppet user does not even come close to referencing... Bobo. 12:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * . Some of your comments are in WP:AADD territory and I would point out to you that wrongly accusing other editors of breaching WP:BLP is itself a breach of WP:AGF. I have already told you, above, that the article says Dinaparna is a former first-class cricketer and it does not say anything about him being a former (local club level) cricketer. As for confirmation that he is a former first-class cricketer, I have already told you, above, that ESPNcricinfo confirms the SPAN (i.e., beginning to end) of his first-class career from 1992/93 to 1992/93. Therefore, that source has verified that he began and ended his first-class career in 1992/93 and so he is a former first-class cricketer. That is basic English usage and it is not something to be argued about here. As for your ten-match notability minimum, go to WT:CRIC and propose a revision of WP:CRIN. I would remind you that WP:CRIN complies with WP:NFOOTY, WP:BASE and other NSPORTS criteria that a single top-level appearance confers notability so you will find you are very much on your own in terms of consensus. Jack &#124; talk page 13:42, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Jack, sadly basic inclusion criteria has been rendered irrelevant by the apparent unacceptability of articles such as Cranston and Perera according to those who wish to debate it. This is no longer about basic inclusion criteria, this is about WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Bobo. 13:45, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's right, Bobo. The arguments do not carry much logic and misuse the written criteria by trying to misrepresent what they actually do say. Jack &#124; talk page 13:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If this had anything to do with logic, the basic logic that every single first-class cricketer is on the same level as the other and is therefore worthy of an article wouldn't have to be thrashed to death... yet nobody has ever wished to dispute this logic in favour of their own arbitrary WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria. I have no doubt that even the people who mindlessly vote delete on these articles without knowing a thing about the subject would agree with this. Bobo. 13:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - I see nothing beyond routine coverage: the chap existed, he played in one match for which we have a scoreboard. We have nothing else to suggest any form of notability. As such he does not, in my view, meet the GNG. I was under the impression that recent conversations had come to the conclusion that it is the GNG that such articles need to meet and not the notability criteria of a sports project. I can see little or no hope that this person will have sufficient in-depth sources about them to meet the GNG and so I see no alternative other than to delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:13, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are a member of WP:CRIC so are you saying you don't agree with WP:CRIN which DOES not only "suggest" but actually define notability? Anyone who has played in a senior match is notable and the same is true of anyone who has played in a senior football, baseball, other sports match too. You are going against WP:CONSENSUS, especially as your precious (and woolly) WP:GNG itself begins by saying: "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 (including NSPORTS)". This whole "deletionist" mentality is based on one thing and one thing only: WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jack &#124; talk page 21:30, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's based on my reading of the GNG and other notability guidelines and, in particular, on the recent discussions surrounding NSPORTS that have taken place. My view is clear and is based on policy. It required no response from anyone and should have been accepted as my reasoned opinion rather than challenged because it is contrary to that held by some others. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Routine coverage" is a woolly, pointless term which allows anyone who uses it to chicken out of an opinion based on the fact that there is zero definition of this term. GNG is utterly undefinable nonsense and completely contradicts guidelines in other places in the encyclopedia. Imagine a day when every single cricket biography exists except for this, S. Perera, Tom Cranston, and no others, simply because WP:IDONTLIKEIT... this makes a mockery of these guidelines, which are painfully easy to understand, implement, and follow. Bobo. 21:40, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Please do not present a view of my position which is so prejudiced. My view is clear and is based on policy. It required no response from anyone and should have been accepted as my reasoned opinion rather than challenged because it is contrary to that held by some others. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Kindly explain which policy you are basing your view on. You say there is "nothing else to suggest any form of notability" but the man meets both NSPORTS and GNG as I have highlighted above. What other "policy" is there? Jack &#124; talk page 22:00, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure whether you are talking to Jack or me when you say that, BST, but, "a view which is so prejudiced"? Simply because we are pointing out that the term which is used is undefinable, contradictory, and almost completely inapplicable? That is the fault of not a single one of us. Frankly if you are working against the project based on completely undefinable criteria without being willing to offer alternative bright-line criteria is disruptive. Bobo. 22:02, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * An AfD is not the place for this discussion which serves only to disrupt the AfD and make it impossible for an admin to close it in any way other than no consensus Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * At the risk of sounding like a six-year-old, you started it. To offer up undefinable terms like "routine coverage" in the face of multiple citations of evidence based on completely independent sources is working against the encyclopedia in every way possible. Adding articles on every single first-class cricketer regardless of the number of first-class appearances or the perceived "involvement" of the player is the only way to achieve full NPOV, and to suggest otherwise with no evidence of secondary sources which contradict the ones already quoted, is disruptive. As I stated below, sports guidelines are insultingly easy to follow. Bobo. 22:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Answer the question, please, as it is relevant to this AfD. What policy? Jack &#124; talk page 22:26, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It's been over 36 hours, Jack. Somehow, I doubt BST has a suitable rationale other than "I don't like it", and "please take these discussions elsewhere". This is what we've been doing for the last 13 years - this is how we come up with these criteria, and this is why these criteria have been stuck by for as long as we have been around. Bobo. 11:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Sports guidelines are almost insultingly easy to follow and ensure that every single cricketer who has made a single major cricketing appearance (which in modern-day terms is painfully easy to define) is equally worthy of an article. To suggest otherwise is a blatant violation of WP:NPOV. If we want to redefine notability guidelines, with the help of community consensus, a single AfD page is not the place to do it.
 * Apparently the problem we have come up against in the past is "reliable sources", plural. Once again, this is easy to fix by anyone who knows the first thing about cricket, and to continuously add articles to AfD is, frankly, disruptive. Bobo. 21:48, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And I would add that the two sources cited in Dinaparna's article, CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo, are entirely reliable and are independent of each other and the subject. Jack &#124; talk page 21:54, 1 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete for lack of significant RS coverage that discusses the subject directly and in detail. Played one match, so it's a WP:BIO1E situation as well. No material to build a functional bio article; see WP:WHYN. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is plenty of reliable source coverage which has been made plainly available in the external links and the references. If you are unaware that this source is reliable and trusted then I suggest you familiarize yourself with the sources given, the way in which they are constructed and compiled, and the fact that they are used by both casuals and professionals all over the world.
 * There is probably a great deal of information we can add, however we need to have access to local sources, many of which will not be printed in English or available in such a widespread manner. Bobo. 10:22, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As for quoting WP:WHYN, you have been around for 2 years, me and Jack have been around for 13 years. With the greatest of respect, I think we'll have a more rounded view of how procedures such as this work. Bobo. 10:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - okay... looks like we're going to lose this article. This is beginning to make myself, Jack, and others who are genuinely interested in building an encyclopedia, incredibly angry that our work over the last 13 years is being ripped apart by those who are more interested in WP:IDON'TLIKEIT?
 * Please consider the rationale for sending this article for deletion - "insufficiently referenced" and, essentially, WP:ONESOURCE, and notice that neither of these criteria is true. This AfD discussion therefore, once again, goes far beyond the incredibly simple-to-understand criteria we work by, and is, frankly, based on entirely spurious means. These problems could be fixed in the blink of an eye by a simple clean-up message. I personally feel this renders the AfD invalid - notwithstanding, once again (doesn't this seem a tad suspicious?) input by confirmed sockpuppets. Bobo. 10:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - hmm, has anyone ever actually checked out Rhadow's userpage? A page-long spiel about apparent sockpuppetry which does almost nothing to make anyone believe Rhadow is anything but a sockpuppet... Bobo. 11:21, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Bobo, for all my faults, sockpuppetry is not one. I have been investigated twice. Go ahead, do it again. I will not react the way I did the first time. I have said what needs to be said about DUCK allegations. I bear no malice to any individual editor. You have done a great job over many years. My concern is that the value of WP is diluted without a reasonable -- and comparable -- bar for each article. We have a family of articles about cricketers who never attracted the attention of any press, appeared only once in play for teams that themselves never distinguished themselves, and have scant evidence. I am personally not convinced that CricketArchive and cricinfo are independent, but I won't argue that. I will argue that cricket and dart-throwing should not have special rules carved out for those sports only. Rhadow (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That doesn't entirely answer my question but okay. As for a "reasonable and comparable bar for each article", that is what we have had for the last 13 years and it has done us no harm until now... but thanks for changing the subject anyway. Seems odd that anyone who is apparently "innocent" would have to defend themselves to such an extent. Bobo. 13:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played just 1 List A first class 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 1992-1993 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) 11:42, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * How do you judge his contribution to be "insignificant"? That is not the issue. The fact that it happened is the point. As for that precious little discussion which people keep pointing out, that is a messy discussion which has been mostly discredited, and shown to be irrelevant to the situation, and full of disgusting levels of incivility. Bobo. 13:31, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Being a very experienced user and admin if you disagree with a community discussion you will have to go to WP:RFC to try to change consensus.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:58, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's not one List A match, it's one first-class match, as shown in the source. Please ensure factual accuracy before you criticize presence of an article based on your own random WP:IDONTLIKEIT justifications. Bobo. 13:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. It is likely there are sources in Sri Lanka that would confirm broader notability if that is necessary (though I don't really see why we ask "experts" on specific topics to come up with sector-specific notability guidelines if we're constantly going to squash their expertise with the weight of opinion of people who aren't experts). Has anyone asked WP:Sri Lanka for assistance on this? Many of our projects and contributions on the English WP already have inbuilt bias towards UK/US/Antipodean topics because we can access sources for those relatively simply; just because this one is difficult doesn't mean that we should give up on it. Who does it benefit to delete it? Would it make the encyclopedia more "encyclopedic"? Johnlp (talk) 12:18, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The whole problem, John, is putting the situation to people who profess themselves to be Wikipedia experts but who are unable to follow simple, clearly defined Wikipedia guidelines. This is nothing but disruptive to the project. Bobo. 13:32, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I refuse to accept that Cricinfo and CricketArchive player profiles can be considered reliable on their own. Till last year, Cricinfo's player profile of Arun Sharma listed him as a Test cricketer. I was surprised to find out that Mr. Sharma does not have an article on Wikipedia, before doing some Googling to discover that he is NOT a Test cricketer. They did fix the profile several weeks after I dropped them a mail asking for correction. And here we have an article on some L. Dinaparna which is entirely carved out of his player profile from these two websites both of which have been found to have such glaring mistakes. I am not saying Cricinfo and CricketArchive are unreliable; they are the best we've got. But to create an article using only the statistical profiles found on these two websites is unacceptable. I mean there is no shred of evidence elsewhere that this Dinaparna guy actually existed and played one match of cricket. Dee  03  15:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * What I also don't understand is why some WP:CRIC members are so hell bent on retaining articles of these one match wonders when there are hundreds of cricketers such as this gentleman who have played over a hundred first-class matches, meet GNG and don't have an article. PS: I'll be creating articles for both Sharma and Chadha later today. Dee  03  15:41, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence that Arun Sharma's profile had him listed as a Test cricketer? Secondary sources only please. As for why we have an article on Dinaparna based on secondary sources, that is precisely the answer. Secondary sources. If our secondary sources claimed otherwise, we would gladly admit our mistakes.
 * Why do we wish to have some articles and yet choose not to have others? To be painfully honest, since you are !voting delete on an article which you know perfectly well reaches guidelines, it's not really your job to be asking that question... Bobo. 15:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have 84 redlinks on my first-class players links page for players who have played for Haryana. If you are willing to create articles on any of these, please do, otherwise deciding to complain when you decide WP:IDONTLIKEIT is hypocrisy. Bobo. 15:59, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised you didn't WP:AGF there. Anyway, I took the trouble of going through the web archives and found the evidence: see this scorecard of a 1988 Test match between India and the West Indies. The sixth batsman in the Indian lineup is Arun Sharma. The page was cached on 15 May 2016, five days before the date of the diff I provided earlier. If you click on Arun Sharma's link to open his profile, you'll be landing on a cached version from 8 July 2016 which doesn't show that he is a Test player. But at that time (May 2016), his profile showed that he had played one Test (the same Test match the web archive link of which I have provided above). Dee  03  18:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Anyhoo, coming back to your original point, I asked this question on a previous AfD and the answer to the question "how do we rely on one source when we have two available to us" is simple. It was made clear to me in a previous AfD that there were far too many cricketers - even Test cricketers - with only one external link (to either of Cricket Archive or Cricinfo - the question of sources here is irrelevant). The fact that we are inconsistent here is partially a fault of the project and the fact that there are so many of us working on the project who work systematically in different ways. What we have learnt, especially in regard to the WP:ONESOURCE argument, is that it is of paramount importance that we make sure we add both as sources. Why didn't I do so for this article, or the thousands of others which also meet WP:CRIN? Force of habit. If that is wrong based on a practice I followed eight years ago, then I am sorry. Bobo. 18:33, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Existence does not prove notability, nor does it necessitate an article. The general notability guideline is quite obviously failed here. I expect a certain admin participating here does not continue their bludeoning behavior. It is very unbecoming, especially considering their role.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:48, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest if you describe it as "bludgeoning", then that is not particularly WP:CIVIL... just saying. Also, am I right in saying you were once blocked for canvassing? Seems a tad hypocritical that you are criticizing me for one thing while you are guilty of another... Bobo. 17:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * you do realize what you are doing constitutes as a personal attack, correct? There is nothing uncivil about me describing bludgeoning behavior when it is obviously occurring here. Also, my past history is completely irrelevant to this discussion and is just a failed attempt by you to slight me. I suggest you knock it off.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I did not attack you in any way, I stated facts. Please don't criticize me if you are unwilling to accept your past behaviour... I have no interest in discussing this further. Bobo. 17:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Good. You weren't adding anything constructive so there would be no benefit to further discussing your behavior.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 17:49, 3 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep we have consistenly held that even a single appearance atthe highest level of a sport is sufficient for notability, and that seems to be the case here. I have no personal interest in this sybject, but I do have an interest in there being some degree of consistency in our decisions. The correct interpretation of "presumed" in WP is the same as in the RW--it will be considered to be th ecase unless there is evidence to show otherwise. Presumed notability eansthe subject meeting the presumption isn otable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not.  DGG ( talk ) 01:58, 8 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.