Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers


 * 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 consensus was delete (or at least "not keep"). The article is short enough that WP:TNT is a viable option, should the subject (or something similar) be deemed to be noteworthy. The 'keep' arguments center around renaming the article to something that doesn't sound so obviously non-notable, which I don't find to be a compelling rationale, particularly when the proposed new name puts the article into a slippery-slope situation where the goalposts for inclusion would be easily moved. The suggestion to list these players in articles about individual first-class clubs seems like the best and most stable alternative. I'm happy to restore the contents to draft space if the content is needed for future reference, although with only 3 entries in the list with only stats pages for references, I doubt that will be necessary. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Having a list of things we don't know about seems to be particularly strange. It's essentially a paradox - if we can't verify them, we can't put them in WP, but if we CAN verify them we can't put them on this list. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  03:13, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Obvious delete. Lesser known is essentially the same as not notable at all. Ajf773 (talk) 05:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete concur with listing editor this is a non-notable list about non-notable individuals. Dan arndt (talk) 06:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Move to List of Sri Lankan cricketers with unidentified given names. This page name is unambiguous and would be a useful place to store information on those players who will struggle, due to a lack of biographical information, to be verifiable as reasonable targets of a page - i.e. where we have only very limited database entries about them. The page name suggested is stolen totally from List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names - a featured list - and was suggested to the editor who created this page. It is an objective naming strategy rather than one where the name of the article requires a judgement to be made. As can be seen from discussions such as WP:Articles for deletion/J. Desai there are editors who would argue that articles where we have very limited biographical information should always be kept as a matter of process and others who would argue that they should be deleted based on the lack of information. A page such as this - with an objective name - is a compromise that might just go some way to allow information to be kept on Wikipedia and articles developed should sources eventually become available. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:01, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is badly titled – who decides which cricketers are lesser known? But it's misconceivedly unencyclopedic anyway. Who would ever search for an article with this (or any alternative) name? Much better to tag these articles (and others like them) with a category that highlights their incompleteness and then, if the cricket sources aren't helpful, appeal to other specialist groups to see if they can help flesh them out. These are not non-notable people: all the articles pass the relevant SNG, so there is a presumption that they can pass WP:GNG, but they lack information. Johnlp (talk) 09:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment --, , , , , , , -- There is a group of cricketers who have made a first-class appearance, which makes them notable as far as WP:NCRIC is concerned. A single appearance is disqualifying for an article under WP:BLP1E. These players appear only in one or two cricket databases.  There is no English-language press coverage. I have no idea whether there is Sinhalese coverage.  A list is a compromise between the cricket fans' inclusionist bent and the deletionist view of others. The current title is imperfect; I modeled it after List of minor biblical figures, A–K.  The cricket fans say the current name is disparaging and implies a value judgement.  Propose another name. The distinguishing feature of this list is the single appearance or lack of press coverage, not the unknown first name. Tagging is not a solution. These articles have been tagged for a decade.  Some of the cricket experts have taken an intransigent stand, relying on the published standard WP:NCRIC and the ten years some of these articles have gone unchallenged. WP:NODEADLINE is being used to shift the responsibility for facts from the editor to the challenger, who is asked to prove that there is no coverage (a logical fallacy). Please think about a workable solution, not why others' suggests are not. Rhadow (talk) 12:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This again? If you're willing to come up with NPOV criteria by which to judge a list of articles by which we can all work, do so. Otherwise, please don't disrespect 10, nearly 15 years of work. This is nothing to do with "inclusionism". It's simple. Choose a rule, stick to it. One major cricketing appearance, as has been the accepted rule for nearly 15 years? Okay. Ten? Two hundred? Suggest it through the appropriate channels. Every single other sporting Wikiproject works to a single major appearance in a top league. Instead of saying, "Why is WP:CRIC so inclusive", you should ask, "Why should we be making WP:CRIC any different"? If you are deciding to get rid of articles which fit clearly-defined inclusion criteria, this is your choice but goes against years' worth of decision making, guideline writing, and so on.
 * One rule, and stick to it. This is nothing to do with inclusionism. This is about having one, simple, clearly-defined rule, as is the same as every rule on every other competitive team sport. The very title of this article breaches NPOV. Bobo. 14:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)!!
 * I've already proposed another name - twice. List of Sri Lankan cricketers with unidentified given names is totally objective. You're in or you're out. Just as on the MLB list, there may be the odd occasion where someone on that list can pass the GNG tests that several RfC have clearly determined that they should, in which case they can be linked from the list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is an obvious problem here with GNG and so forth. Let's say that I, one day, made an appearance in a first-class match in... say, Zimbabwe. Those who know nothing about Zimbabwean cricket then say, "technically this guy meets guidelines but I know nothing about Zimbabwean cricket so delete". But then they find out that according to the Harare Daily Chronicle, I was wearing an inflatable hippopotamus suit. Because this therefore appeared in a published qualification, I have become notable not as "the guy who made a first-class cricketing appearance" but as "the guy who dressed in an inflatable hippopotamus suit".
 * Does anyone else see the problem here? Bobo. 15:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no problem - it's a One Event BLP issue Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Unless of course the guy received national media coverage because he appeared in a giant inflatable hippopotamus suit, then he has been named in sources which people perceive to be independent of the event... Bobo. 15:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * No, it's still One Event - if the only reason they get coverage is because they have appeared as a hippo !!and that's the only thing that the articles discuss, then it's clearly a OE issue which is easily resolved Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * , if the rest agree, a move is fine. Are you proposing that the other articles with known given and surnames stay, even with a single appearance and no press coverage besides a scorecard? BTW, Bobo, this matter has gone to the appropriate channels Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. Rhadow (talk) 15:52, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know to be honest. I was more concerned with the set of articles we have in front of us just now. When there is more biographical information available then I think verifiability becomes less of an issue and there is, frankly, more chance of finding sources on the person. My general feeling is that those articles are less likely to be deleted - I would need to see each article on a case by case basis anyway and to carry out the sorts of checks that are needed before voting in any AfD. I suppose !!in an ideal world we'd have lists of players for each FC team where articles could be redirected as required. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - first-class cricket has a simple, universally applicable definition. Anyone who is against the inclusion of every single first-class cricketer having an article is in clear breach of NPOV - or needs to choose, decide upon, select alternative inclusion criteria, take it through the appropriate channels, and have it implemented. And this is nothing to do with GNG either. We have proven time and time again that not only is GNG devalued by the very contradictions in its writing, and in contradictions with criteria in other places on the project, but that it is woolly and unverifiable at all levels. Having simple, defined, bright-line criteria is the only way to fairly, and neutrally, work on articles on Wikipedia. If you are in breach of these then you are the problem, not the solution. Bobo. 14:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - people are busy saying that this is a way of putting into a list people who are clearly non-notable individuals? By the very definition of WP:CRIC these are notable individuals. Want to change this? Go through the appropriate channels to suggest new NPOV criteria as consistent with every single other sporting Wikiproject.The way WP:CRIC defines "notable" is insultingly simple and understandable, and marries up with every single other team sporting Wikiproject. Bobo. 15:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This has almost nothing to do with whether the individuals are notable. It's the fact that having this list does not make sense. It's basically saying "these players are notable for being lesser known." And I don't think that's the case, hence the nomination. If you can prove these people existed and appeared in a match, then make an individual article. The list is not notable. That's the only issue herein. I don't know the bigger issues within the cricket community, but I'm not trying to change anything there. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia  ᐐT₳LKᐬ  15:57, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with whether these individuals are notable, as this is why several of these individuals' articles are being deleted, this was the stop-gap solution, and this stop-gap solution is now being seen as unhelpful. This is the reason these specific cricketers were placed into this list. As for "proof", that's not what is required. Validation, yes. The fact that we can provide at least two references for every single first-class player, yes. If this is not enough then dare I suggest that we, as a project, have been going down the wrong road for more than ten years? Bobo. 16:05, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Question - Bluesquarething, I guess I'm mostly asking this of you, and please know that I mean no harm, just throwing it out there as a random idea. Should there be an article on every team who have made a first-class appearance, such as List of Vidarbha cricketers, List of Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketers? Making the assumption that everybody agrees that "lesser-known" is too POV a term to be used on Wikipedia, should we just group every first-class team by its first-class cricketers, then when people decide they want players deleted, we always have "the list" to fall back on... Bobo. 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - *grin* It looks like someone already wrote one for Vidarbha but couldn't be bothered to finish it..! Bobo. 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It seems a common way to do things. I'd probably not limit it to First-class, but it would seem logical to have simple lists (and I would keep them simple fwiw) of players who have played for each team. It seems pretty common in, say, Major League Baseball, although the Football project seems to restrict the lists to those who have played a certain number of matches.
 * There are already categories which can do this but, to be honest, I don't know how many people necessarily use categories and they're of no use at all if there are players without an article for any reason Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:33, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When you refer to keeping them as simple lists, I would still tabulate the entries. Something similar to this... Bobo. 16:45, 11 October 2017 (UTC)



!Name !Birth !Death !First-class span !Appearances
 * colspan=5 border=1 align=center|List of Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club first-class cricketers
 * ABC
 * 01-01-01
 * 01-01-01
 * 1947-48 - 1948-49
 * 2
 * }
 * If they're short lists then tables are fine, but I find that when lists get longer that tables mean that I gloss over and can't read anything on them - and I'm much less likely to think about editing them. Sorry - not a fan of tables used like this! That's my rationale for simplicity if I'm honest - I'm more like to use it and to edit it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If they're short lists then tables are fine, but I find that when lists get longer that tables mean that I gloss over and can't read anything on them - and I'm much less likely to think about editing them. Sorry - not a fan of tables used like this! That's my rationale for simplicity if I'm honest - I'm more like to use it and to edit it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:25, 11 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, but rename to something like List of Sri Lankan cricketers with one first-class appearance. Now, the dealbreaker is will anyone make the effort to fully expand the list and make it into something that could become similar to the List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names? Probably not.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 18:28, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The question after that is how do we deal with the individual first-class cricketers with a single first-class appearance who are still bluelinked? In the interest of maintaining NPOV but retaining these names, the only logical way is by redirecting every single one. It makes no sense to retain some and lose others. That is a clear violation of NPOV. Bobo. 18:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, there's nothing preventing having the stand-alone article and the entry on the list. If they have an article, great, blue-link it, and it's the best of both worlds. Compare List of Sri Lanka ODI cricketers. There's an entry for Ranjan Gunatilleke who only played in one ODI (I know his CI bio shows other FC matches), but for sake of this AfD, lets say that was his only match. There's nothing wrong in this case of having him on the list and a blue-link. I hate to bring football into this, but look at some of the lists in the category Category:Lists of association football players by club in England, esp. those for players with 1–24 appearances. Here's one example of a mix of blue links and non links.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:07, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And on a semi-related note, I know that there are some Featured Lists with redlinks or no-links. This one being an example of the former.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:16, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
 * After having time to sleep on this, probably the best solution is to setup list articles for each club, rather than break it down by x number of matches. Then if you get an AfD for a one-time wonder with no first name, no birth/death dates, etc, you can always redirect that article to the list, saving the edit history. The article can then always be restored IF new information is found at a later date.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 06:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Lists of first-class cricketers by team? Alphabetical list sorted by surname? Would we want any extra data on the lists other than their full name (as best known by CA - therefore initials only if necessary)? Derbyshire, for example, has the players' first-class spans, and their given scorecard "name". This is how Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club's list would start (obviously the A would be a heading and the indents would be bulletpoints...):


 * A


 * RMN Abeysinghe (2011/12 - 2012/13) (RMN Abeysinghe)
 * PK Aluwihare (1997/98) (PK Aluwihare)


 * That's essentially what I've been keeping on my sandbox for the best part of the last ten years (albeit not in that form). Bobo. 09:44, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are right. This is the best solution we have. We should have lists where we can merge the content if it is per WP:BIO1E or fails WP:GNG for stand-alone article.  Greenbörg  (talk)  09:48, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The simple answer to "who would know the real names of these cricketers" is high-profile cricketers they played alongside (even if this cricketer didn't know the full name of his teammate, he could at least say, "well, I knew his first name was Boris...") and so, full name or not, his name could probably be verified by a secondary source belonging to the club. (When I say "full name or not", what I mean is, if we had an entry for a KB Smith who played for Doncaster Dynamos, someone else at Doncaster Dynamos, either a player or someone in management, could verify that his first name was Kenny, so the entry would read Kenny Smith and the "name" section could say "Kenny B Smith"). For example, in PK Aluwihare's debut match, Dammika Ranatunga carried his bat. I still believe excluding certain individuals for some perceived non-rule is against the basic NPOV guideline of Wikipedia, but that's by the by. Give me a minute to find another example... Bobo. 09:57, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Former KYCC player whose name is given on CA as N. de Silva played alongside former Test cricketer Lanka de Silva. Bobo. 10:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * SSW Gunawardene (who played eleven first-class matches yet people don't know his given name) played against names such as Muttiah Muralitharan, Chandika Hathurusingha, Champaka Ramanayake, Upul Chandana... and that was just on his debut! "Mum, you know who I just met? Four legendary Test cricketers!" Bobo. 10:18, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

U. Hettiarachchi P. de Silva U. Chandana ‎ J. Aponso B. Abeywickreme D. Abeyasekera J. Bandujeewa A. Amaranth N. Fernando Liyana de Silva
 * Suspiciously I wasn't notified that LdS had been taken to PROD, but that's unrelated to this conversation... Bobo. 00:06, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep It's better to have this page than to have stand-alone pages for each entry on this page.  The page may need to be renamed, as it's not really a WP:SAL-style list article. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 15:26, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Tricky: I see where is coming from but if letting things exist as a mans of preventing their existence is made widespread it kind of defeats the purpose of notability guidelines.  If it is kept, all the people on that list need protecting from creation because otherwise there will just be heaps of G4s to deal with.  I doubt people will be happy to do that so from a practical and ideological standpoint I'm going to have to go delete per stand-alone list criteria.  The very fact "lesser-known" is in the title immediately suggests that the page will fail list notability guidelines.    Dr Strauss   talk   21:05, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete list of non notable people is non notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:20, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename to the one-first class apparance name proposed above. It is best to create articles with clearly defined names, and one first class apparence is clearly defined, "lesser known" is not well defined.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete and start over per WP:TNT. Although a list article is a good way to deal with players for whom only bare statistics are available, I do not think this list is well conceived. It would be better to have lists of players by club instead, presented as a long table of names and statistics. Of course, players notable individually would be blue-linked. Maybe something like this:

This would at least avoid the problem of saying more than the sources do, which is a common issue when inflating stats to prose. Reyk YO!  07:33, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To be honest, long lists of tables like that are, for me, impenetrable and very difficult to use. I also find them extremely difficult to edit - to the extent that I would simply not edit them. A list such as List of Islamabad United cricketers - perhaps with a little more detail (number of games perhaps) - strikes me as much more usable and maintainable. It's not so bad if a list has a caretaker who aims to maintain it (this one has that - probably, but this other one doesn't and hasn't been updated since September 2014). Tables are all very well if there aren't many entries or where a team is defunct, but really suck when they need to be updated regularly (say, for currently operating teams) and have a tonne of entries. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I can understand that. Big lists are not to everyone's taste, but I'm not sure there's a really satisfactory answer. An article like List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players only contains blue-linked players and we're trying to figure out what to do with players who are not going to be blue-linked. Leaving them as individual articles isn't much help either, because it'll be all the same information but diluted over a huge multitude of articles; and that not only leaves the maintenance problems but also the WP:V trouble that comes with trying to write prose around raw statistics. Maybe you have a better idea. Reyk  YO!  17:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I prefer a list with name and dates played for active teams (as the Islamabad United example). For lists that are short or where teams are defunct I could go with name, dates, appearances perhaps - maybe with a notes column if there is anything significant to say. That's more maintainable in my view and wouldn't have to be in a table actually. I'm sure, by the way, that there are candidates on that Hampshire list where one appearance and very little detail exist - just because someone's turned them all into blue links doesn't mean that they are all necessarily notable Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps title something like List of Hampshire County Cricket Club first-class players: A will be better with lesser entries makes it more readable and we will have all these stats as shown by .  Greenbörg  (talk)  17:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * All of which we can get by going to other database sites. Which is really not what this place is about. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:06, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So I guess the developing consensus is that less is more. I'm OK with that. Reyk  YO!  19:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's worth starting from a position of less certainly. But I'm willing to be persuaded that it's possible to go further. I'd not rule some more detail out, for sure Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:13, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but rename per Lugnuts earlier. EXCEPT that it should be widened in SCOPE and renamed List of first-class cricketers with a single top-class appearance. Make it worldwide, with by country sections, and use the generic "top-class" instead of the specific "first-class" to include List A and T20 once-onlies. Anyone who is in the list with a blue link is fine per WP:CRIN and the redlinks will receive attention in due course. Frankly, as Bobo said above, anyone in breach of guidelines that have been created and maintained by WP:CONSENSUS for a dozen years or more is himself the problem and any member of WP:CRIC who rejects WP:CRIN is in breach of WP:CONSENSUS. Jack &#124; talk page 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not in breach of WP:CONSENSUS, . Simply in breach of logic. All this nonsense is simple. We've either chosen a guideline and are sticking to it, chosen a guideline and, for the first time after over 10 years are suddenly deciding that the guideline is no longer fit for purpose, with no wish to express an alternate guideline or an alternate purpose which conforms with basic NPOV, or are choosing to keep and delete individual articles because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Like you say, without the ability to keep a single, comprehensive, neutral list, this list serves no purpose other than to collect together those cricketers who the people who are adding to this list initially decided that the articles in question didn't fit their standards. This lapse in logic makes basic discussion on the matter completely pointless.
 * Perhaps I would have more respect if these debates had happened ten years ago when these articles were first created. The fact that almost all of the ones which were deleted by PROD had not had their article text even modified in the last ten, twelve years, is, to me, proof that there probably was no problem... Bobo. 18:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - I can't help but notice that this page has been undergoing a "major reconstructing" for eight days and still nothing has been done. We've (apparently) finally discovered a solution to this basic violation of NPOV, and the people who have decided it should be violated are no longer interested in maintaining their stance by making any effort to expand this article. Which is cute. Bobo. 18:44, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, Bobo, but unfortunately this isn't the Vulcan WP and they can't breach WP:LOGIC . They certainly do breach WP:CONSENSUS and WP:IDONTLIKEIT and more. Oh, and I've removed that UC template because it isn't. Jack &#124; talk page 19:18, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "Logic is the cement of our civilization, with which we ascend from chaos, using reason as our guide." T'Plana-Hath, Matron of Vulcan Philosophy  Bobo. 19:21, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Given that these articles have been stale for over eight years, I can't understand why you're complaining that "nothing has been done" with this list for eight days. Dee  03  18:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Because an "under construction" tag was placed on it for an unacceptable amount of time when it was clearly not "under construction". Seems fairly simple to me. Bobo. 19:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete it as I think there is no use of such list and therefore should be deleted.  Greenbörg  (talk)  15:55, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The "use" of the list is to pacify the WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade who begged for articles which meet WP:CRIN to be deleted with no respect for basic guidelines which state that every first-class cricketer is notable. Pathetic, isn't it? Bobo. 17:15, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - per WP:CRIN, individual first-class cricketers with a single first-class appearance qualify for an article. That seems to be set in stone. Of secondary interest is that nobody is going to be looking for this article, so all this discussion and consensus building is moot. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  17:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC).
 * Sadly, the deletion of many articles of players such as Tom Cranston, S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) and others in recent times proves that while those who care about this project would like it to be so, this is not the case thanks to a group of users who are attempting to argue by other guidelines - which not a single one has explained, defined, justified, or qualified with relation to the criteria we've been working on for the entire history of the project.
 * As for "nobody looking for the article". the sad fact is that these articles are being sent for deletion up to eight years after they were originally created. How does an article remain eight years on the 'pedia without being deleted unless someone in the WP:IDONTLIKEIT brigade comes along? Seems suspicious that this is happening on such a scale lately... Bobo. 17:12, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying the history. Call out the closing editors. TimTempleton <sup style="color:#800080">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  17:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Too late for that, sadly. They're systematically destroying our project by judging by their own WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria with no respect for the last 13 years and the fact that our criteria have been absolutely fine and remained unchallenged for all that time. Bobo. 17:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep but move it to the title suggested by Lugnuts/BlackJack. There are far too many articles of cricketers with a single first-class appearance who don't meet GNG and fall into the WP:BLP1E territory. Anybody looking for these one match wonders can be redirected to this list which can provide the same information in a presentable format, instead of making them read those two-liners in standalone articles which are exactly identical to each other except for the name, team and runs scored in their only appearance. Dee  03  18:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - if this article is kept, it needs to conform to specific, brightline criteria. Don't just add articles to it willy nilly without some kind of logical justification for keeping or removing. Otherwise those who are whining about the brightline criteria we have been using for 12 years or more frankly don't have a leg to stand on and are just using it as an excuse for WP:IDONTLIKEIT logic.
 * Let's face it, the articles we've see deleted so far, they've not conformed to any sort of inclusion criteria, have they? They've not been suddenly paid attention to by those with no respect for the project, have they? Oh wait.... Bobo. 18:46, 19 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and Deathlibrarian who, quite succinctly, argues that a list of non notable people is non notable. Ifnord (talk) 19:04, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've just had a random thought. Let's say Tom Cranston (using his name because it is unrelated to this specific AfD) came upon his article and said, "I feel uncomfortable with my biography being on Wikipedia. Please remove it." Something tells me that the people who are voting "delete" on his article would say, "But you have to expect you should have an article on Wikipedia. Why are you trying to hide knowledge of your existence?"
 * By extension, if we were to know for certain what A. Amaranath's first name was, and if he were to contribute to a similar discussion, would we be saying the same thing? Bobo. 21:16, 19 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.