Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/N. Fernando


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

N. Fernando

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete 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) 11:17, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 11:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Mark the trainDiscuss 11:59, 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)
 * Delete - the discussion that Pharaoh of the Wizards links to above is the most recent attempt to deal with the relationship between the GNG and NSPORTS. The subject of this article does not appear, in my view, to meet the GNG or WP:N. There is no "significant coverage" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" - all that we have is a surname, initial and the fact that he appeared in one match deemed to be of first-class standard in 1991-92. The CricInfo profile for the chap (here) adds nothing. I judge that it is extremely unlikely that suitably in depth, non-routine sources are likely to be produced which will show any form of notability - a feat made more difficult by the chap's surname I imagine). I'd be happy to see a reasonable time frame be allowed to do so if required but would suggest that a better route would be to delete and then recreate if such sources are forthcoming - there is hardly a wealth of information here to recreate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:26, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge into a list of Kandy Youth Cricket Club players. That's probably the best way to deal with players for whom only a list of statistics is available. Reyk  YO!  10:14, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. It has consistently been held that a single appearance at the highest level of a sport is sufficient for WP:N. The correct interpretation of "presumed" in WP is that it is considered to be the case, unless there is evidence to the contrary, for presumed notability to mean the subject is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not. In this case, no one has presented any evidence suggesting that the subject is not notable, given that he has played cricket at the highest level and meets WP:CRIN (see WP:NCRIC in WP:NSPORTS). Furthermore, there have been several precedents in which subjects like this one have been kept or where no consensus has been ruled (see, for example, Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna and Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination)).
 * For those with their own interpretation of WP:GNG, the introduction to that guideline 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 10:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as no signs of meeting WP:GNG. We are not database site where we should have article on every single cricketer.  Greenbörg  (talk)  15:46, 11 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. This article also fails WP:BIO1E.  J 947 ( c ) (m)   03:52, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 16:19, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers for the reasons already discussed elsewhere. Rhadow (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:29, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete one apparance in cricket that lead to no known details about the person just shows that if the cricket guidelines say this person is notable, we need to tighten them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
 * redirect NSPORTS does supercede GNG. L3X1 (distænt write)  02:20, 20 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.