Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players


 * 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. No prejudice against the creation of List of Panadura Sports Club players.  A  Train talk 07:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * Delete per Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers which was created by the same editor. Pointless exercise which adds no value. Jack &#124; talk page 13:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC) Jack &#124; talk page 13:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is an article which needs creating, it would be List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers. This would render this page unnecessary. "Lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers" is a nonsense, inapplicable "guideline" which only suits those who have cried "I don't like the fact that these articles which meet criteria should be allowed on Wikipedia. I would accept an article of List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers, similar to our other lists, if only the currently fervent deletionist cabal understands that the only way to achieve true NPOV is to apply the same guideline everywhere across every cricket article. Jack, how would you feel about List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers superseding this article? Bobo. 13:59, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I am the "same editor" who proposed this article and the now deleted Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers. It would only make sense that I am in favor of keeping this article. Rhadow (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It makes no sense at all to keep this article which is effectively just as useless as the previous one deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - forgive me for repeating what I wrote above but I guess I need to write it as a comment for it to "count" (so to speak), List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers would make more sense and completely negate the need for this article. Every English county has an article such as this and it would make sense for other teams in other countries to also have these teams added too. The only question I would have regarding "per team" lists is where to "draw the line". Bobo. 16:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per TNT. A better way to do this is to produce lists of players by club, rather than an arbitrary number of appearances. The non-notable one-game players where we only know statistics and frequently not even the full name would be listed there, and of course actually notable players would be bluelinked in addition to being listed. This is the solution I've been suggesting for quite some time now, and it's interesting to see Bobo now on board with it when just a few weeks ago he and friends were bombarding me with abusive commentary for recommending the exact same thing. Needless to say, my delete vote here should not be construed as somehow support for keeping the individual microstubs as separate articles. Reyk  YO!  16:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * "On board with it"? With what? I believe that there should be players lists for all first-class sides and individual articles for all first-class cricketers, and have believed so from moment one. What have I ever claimed otherwise? I believe that the only neutral way of treating articles like this is all first-class players for all first-class teams in lists, and all first-class players bluelinked regardless of whether someone happens to have heard of them... Bobo. 16:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. An almost carbon copy of Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers. A useless, uninteresting, list of non notable cricketers and using sources that require a subscription to be verified. Ajf773 (talk) 20:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Ajf773, I respect you but that is not the issue. The issue is that this list cannot be independently verified, nor can anybody be certain that it will ever be complete without checking and validating dozens of different links whose content may be changed at any time. Bobo. 22:39, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. One-appearance players? Two-appearance players? How many of these lists could there be? It's nonsensical. There should be a List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers which would make this and any other lists redundant. And because all of the cricketers on such a list would pass WP:CRIN, they can be presumed to be notable. Johnlp (talk) 23:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Containing every first-class name rather than the odd bluelink which is what happens on a lot of other "players lists". Bobo. 23:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LISTN and WP:NCRICKET. I hate the subject and normally I'd cite WP:WTAF. However, each player is notable (sadly) and LISTN says that the list can exist since the group by selection is notable. Assuming the citations come from a reliable source, any !vote to delete is IDONTLIKEIT. I'm all for merging this content into List of lesser-known cricketers or some such. Bobo192 makes a valid point about WP:V so I reserve the right to change my position if the present sourcing really isn't tenable. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 06:41, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point that, although this list may comply with LISTN, it is NO USE to anyone because of its limited scope. It therefore adds no value and the better approach by far is List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers as proposed by Bobo and Johnlp above. Apart from anything else, the "how to use instructions" on the talk page reveal a mischievous intent which breaches WP:MERGE. Jack &#124; talk page 12:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * In which case, your rationale is unsound. Keep the article on randomly hashed-together single appearance players even though you know every single one is worthy of an article? This is a contradiction. This is an article based on cobbled-together nonsense and I am willing to bet that not a single person is willing to complete the list or maintain it beyond its current state. But I'm willing to be proven wrong. Bobo. 15:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm perfectly fine seeing this content at List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers. AfD isn't the place for a discussion to move an article. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 15:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This makes more sense than any other solution and is, I think, the one we are gradually gravitating towards although it will require someone to do the legwork. Bobo. 15:36, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Exactly, no one is willing to create List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers at the present time and so this pointless exercise with its limited scope should be deleted and not moved. As for WP:DEL, an article does not have to meet any of its guidelines to be deleted. Articles do get deleted because they are unfit for purpose, like this one is. You should be aware that there is history too with the creator of the article and his motives are highly questionable, the talk page message being a case in point. Jack &#124; talk page 15:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have been willing to do so in the olden days Jack. In a perfect world every regular first-class side would have a list of first-class players by team. But not while our project is under fire from those who refuse to work to years' worth of guidelines (which have been constantly refined on their terms), Sadly this would change the rationales to, "Why does this player qualify for a list and an article? Which is obvious nonsense... Bobo. 15:47, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, actually, Bobo, I've got a comprehensive list of Sri Lankan first-class players (no LA or T20 though) in an XL. It's not yet in a format that could be applied here because it's players per season and so someone like the esteemed Murali recurs twenty-odd times. I might be prepared to do something with it in the near future. Watch the space, I suppose, or the redlink . That stuff from power-enwiki is great. Jack &#124; talk page 15:59, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * List of Sri Lankan cricketers who debuted during the 1999-2000 Premier Trophy season is a teensy bit unwieldy for my liking. Bobo. 16:11, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * A list of lesser known cricketers would most certainly fail WP:LISTN as there is no reasonable criteria for being more or less known to the public. It's a terrible concept for a list article. Ajf773 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ajf773, well said. That is a very good point. All the best. Jack &#124; talk page 21:34, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete WP:WRITEITFIRST. If the players are notable create their articles and include them on List of Panadura Sports Club players. If they aren't notable, they shouldn't be on any article. Seems to me some editors are trying to get non-notable individuals onto Wikipedia through the back door or are too lazy to create a comprehensive List of Panadura Sports Club players.--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Question to Obi2canibe So do you think a single-appearance player with a scorecard and no press is notable according to WP:NCRIC or fails WP:BLP1E?


 * 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.