Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Dhanayake


 * 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. Insufficient sourcing for a BLP.  A  Train talk 07:43, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

S. Dhanayake

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:GNG no press coverage since 2009. None today. WP:BLP1E Rhadow (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * POINT OF ORDER. Does not fail BLP1E because sportspeople are outside it's scope. Nominator is persistently misrepresenting guidelines and has been warned for it. Jack &#124; talk page 23:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Illegitimate point of order. Putting bogus warnings on peoples' talk pages so you can later shout "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED" is poor form. Reyk  YO!  11:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Completely legit warning because misrepresentation of guidelines is unacceptable. Rhadow has done this several times re more than one guideline. If Rhadow heeds the warning and does not misrepresent BLP1E and others in future, then all well and good. I suggest you refrain from both WP:Wikistalking and bullshitting. Jack &#124; talk page 12:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - greetings Rhadow. How do you feel about Anachronist's suggestion of grouping first-class cricketers by club, as posted on Articles for deletion/List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers? If you are open to grouping by club and then removing articles at whim because they get deleted for whatever reason, then it doesn't matter any more what happens to individual articles, because we've broken Wikipedia enough to WP:IGNORE based on criteria we've plucked out of the air. Otherwise it's pointless to keep doing this over and over. Bobo. 23:42, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment - zero conversation has gone on within this AfD in the 18 hours since it was set up. I think this is because we are busy trying to set up an alternative solution to the problem of people coming along and randomly sending cricket articles for deletion. Is it fair to suggest that this AfD is postponed while the other solution is in the planning? May I suggest the same regarding MW Duminda, Rhadow? Bobo. 16:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There's no need to rush. 18 hours is nothing. I'd like time to enable me to look for sources and the like first please. Sometimes AfD take time to get going - you know that, you've been here long enough. Feel free to hide both your own comment and my response if you feel that's appropriate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not really, we are too busy sorting out other issues. I'm just about to leave a comment on WT:CRIC, please let me know what you think. You know I see you as an ally, BST, please let me know if you think it's more important to instigate a conversation which sorts this problem out once and for all? I think that's the only way we will be able to solve this current problem. Bobo. 16:43, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * OK, try this: Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players Rhadow (talk) 17:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, if you're willing to expand the article with complete information before someone spots it and sends it to AfD... I would have suggested setting up a completed version of List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers to avoid violation of NPOV. Which I'm more than prepared to do given time, especially given as the article is redlinked. (Sorry, my initial comment was unintentionally snipe-y. I didn't mean it that way). Bobo. 18:20, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sending a list to AfD because it has three items, well that's balderdash. My suggestion is to set up these team lists and fill them in as we go.  When an article comes up with BLP1E, merge the text and make a redirect. A few months is fine. Nine years no. Rhadow (talk) 18:59, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not the issue. The issue is that a couple of articles have been randomly put on the list(s) of cricketers per team. Surely the most logical thing is to put all the articles on the list, and then work from there. Bluelinks can remain bluelinks, to be added and deleted on the whim of whoever wishes to do so, redlinks can become bluelinks or remain redlinks, or do both, at the whim of whoever wishes to dictate their own WP:IDONTLIKEIT guidelines to the community at large. Bobo. 19:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * List of Andhra cricketers should contain a complete list of all the cricketers who have played first-class for Andhra, sorted by surname, as well as their participating seasons, not just a couple of players' names. Bobo. 19:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Bobo and, I don't have a problem with the list articles mentioned here, as long as each player is verified by at least one source. Single sources such as "CricketArchive" are OK with me for the list articles. Of course, in contrast, I have a problem when only one database source is used for a biography article, as if that is sufficient to pass notability criteria for a living person or other bio. Steve Quinn (talk) 01:30, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * This being true, it's sad that articles are being sent to deletion based on WP:ONESOURCE, or that ONESOURCE is being used as a supposedly valid argument, when anyone who claims to know a single thing about cricket could just as easily add a second and avoid this whole topic altogether. Once they satisfy the argument of ONESOURCE, in theory that should be fine for those who offer ONESOURCE as an argument, although after that it tends to be that people decide to delete based on inconsistent, woolly criteria and the sheer fact that an article on a player should be deleted simply because they've never heard of the player, which I'm guessing is what happens in most cases. Bobo. 03:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a link to the scorecard in question as, for some reason, these scorecards on Cricinfo have not been turned into linked main articles and therefore an individual player page is impossible. But there are people around here who seem to prefer references as sources rather than external links anyway so this should satisfy them. Thank you for this suggestion, Steve, I've gone and dealt with it and now we at least know that the only reason people will decide to delete articles is because of WP:NEVERHEARDOFIT. As a sidenote, Steve, may I please genuinely thank you for being civil in your comment as this has led to the issue being sorted quietly and without incident - for a change! Bobo. 03:24, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The scorecard (or database) is considered trivial coverage anyway, so, unfortunately, this won't shore up notability (please see this). Two databases such as this would still be trivial coverage. This is the problem I have with only sourcing with these scorecards (or databases). Two scorecards probably confirm the person exists and made a first-class appearance, but they do not establish notability. Significant coverage of some kind is needed for a biography, and if the person is living then BLP should be satisfied as well. I am glad we can have a civil dialog, as you noted. Obviously uncivil dialogs are a waste of time and energy. --Steve Quinn (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect if a suitable list can be found. Unfortunately I simply can't find any additional sources to support notability, leaving us with an incomplete database entry (CricketArchive) and a scorecard on an alternative database site (CricInfo). I don't, on balance, consider that there is a reasonable assumption that can be made that more substantive sources are available - and, believe me, I've looked and made enquiries. Given, then, that we have such incomplete information about the chap I consider that removing the article is the best approach. Blue Square Thing (talk) 05:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sadly if this is true then this is likely true for 90 percent of non-English non-Test cricket biographies. No article is "complete". Bobo. 06:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Where you talk about a "suitable list" - it's suspicious that the anti-CRIN lot haven't decided to create these lists themselves while these debates are going on so that we can sort out this nonsense, but anyhoo - would List of Panadura Sports Club cricketers be satisfactory? The List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers was deleted on the basis of severe breach of NPOV, but lists of cricketers by team - regardless of their perceived "lack of notability" - is a logical NPOV solution. Bobo. 07:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, List if Panadura cricketers would be perfect. I thought that was the consensus. In order to create a list like that I'd need access to CricketArchive and time to do so. I don't have either right now - if that's suspicious then I do kind of wonder... Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Would we then include every cricketer who appeared for Panadura, just randomly-added bluelinks as per List of Andhra cricketers (a distinct violation of NPOV based only on a couple of bluelinks (here)), or just those which have been deleted in direct contradiction to the insultingly easy to follow WP:CRIN criteria (as per here)? Bobo. 23:09, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Although these obsessive anti-CRIN individuals will not admit it, there are in existence significant Sri Lankan sources as we were able to establish in the case of Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer). A contact in Sri Lanka was willing to check a highly reputable Sinhalese newspaper, Dinamina, for a specific match report and found additional information about that player. While we obviously cannot expect anyone in Sri Lanka to perform short-term checks of Dinamina for every single first-class player, the match report she did check proves not only that Sinhalese sources exist but also that their cricket coverage effectively matches that of newspapers in the English-speaking countries. The fact of this level of coverage by Dinamina and other Sinhalese publications meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. These nominations are disruptive. Jack &#124; talk page 10:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Inline citations. There are now inline citations from THREE independent sources in the article, all of them meeting WP:RS and, by means of a footnote, an explanation of how the article meets the terms of WP:NEXIST. I suggest that this AfD is closed immediately as a complete waste of everybody's time. Jack &#124; talk page 11:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - the two basic notability "guidelines" completely contradict each other, each rendering the other completely worthless. The only way to work to guidelines is by following simple, universally applicable notability criteria. As Jack explained, press coverage has been proven, rendering the main excuse for sending to deletion completely meaningless. It has now been proven that there is coverage outside of the links provided. Bobo. 14:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And while WP:DONTKNOWTHEGUYSFIRSTNAME sounds like a nice rationale for deletion, it sounds a tad unwieldy for a hashtag, doesn't it? ;) Bobo. 14:18, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep again per BlackJack. This deletionist rush is a drain on the community's resources and should come to a halt. Lepricavark (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Frankly if this deletionist rush were on any other subject, the nominations would be seen as frivolous, disruptive, and the nominators would be severely castigated. Bobo. 22:41, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

*Delete it as this is established by previous AfDs that bios of these players should not be all stats. I don't think we will ever have coverage from which we can write enough biography for him. Not discussed in detail by multiple sources so we can write enough without WP:OR. Name-checked only by match records in different sources which only verify him per WP:V but this still fails WP:GNG. Störm  (talk)  09:49, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Störm, I suggest you read WP:NEXIST and consider the facts that (a) Sinhalese coverage does exist; and (b) the Perera case proves that additional information can be found there. Thanks. Jack &#124; talk page 12:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * The article is by no means "all stats" - this is a blatant lie, the article consists of words as well. And in any case, if your complaint is that the *article* is not satisfactory, then you're not making any reference to any kind of policy or guideline which says the article should or shouldn't be permitted. Bobo. 15:14, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into a suitable list of players by club. A quarter of this article is statistics bloated grotesquely into a semblance of prose, and the rest is a bizarre footnote that is not about the person at all, but unsuccessfully tries to argue that articles of this kind should be exempt from WP:N and WP:V. Hopeless. Reyk  YO!  11:03, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Absolute rubbish. Jack &#124; talk page 12:24, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Articles are not judged on quality, and this article does not contain "statistics", but prose. Articles are judged on whether they are suitable for Wikipedia judging by Wikipedia guidelines. Frankly if your complaint is, "article is of poor quality", why haven't you been busy improving it for the last nine years? Bobo. 15:10, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Additional rationale for keep. Per power~enwiki at Articles for deletion/I. Kudigame, this article qualifies as a procedural keep because it complies with a subject specific guideline (i.e., WP:CRIN) and, procedurally, a consensus cannot overturn either the three core policies or the five pillars. WP:Notability is not one of the CCPOL but the article passes each of WP:NPOV, WP:NOR and WP:V. Re the 5PI, this article clearly qualifies as valid content for a specialised almanac.
 * Furthermore, per DGG at Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.
 * Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack &#124; talk page 15:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- a BLP with such limited sourcing that even the subject's date of birth is unknown. A technical SNG pass does not guarantee an article; see WP:WHYN. Minimum sourcing should be met; BLPs deserve better than this article. Moreover, Wikipedia does not aspire to be an exhaustive directory of all cricketers. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:27, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see how "don't know the article subject's date of birth" can possibly be used as an acceptable criterion for deletion. As for the fact that we "don't aspire" to be an "exhaustive directory" of all cricketers, this actually isn't true! Yes, we do! And that's precisely what the cricket project has been working on for the last 12 years. And precisely what we're coming up against now. "Minimum sourcing" has been met - as long as "minimum" doesn't incorporate "zero". The incompatibility and contradictory nature of the two most basic inclusion guidelines have, in my mind, conclusively proven that invoking SNG is the only true neutral way to go. And thankfully we don't work on "article quality" as an inclusion criterion, otherwise 99 percent of Wiipedia articles would be deleted... no article is "complete". Bobo. 09:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This will benefit from some additional eyes.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades of Godric On leave 17:34, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Very strong delete One apparance in "first class" cricket, with one source justifying the claim, is orders of magnitude below the notability guidelines. It is also high time that sports fans stopped trying to bully people into letting them take over Wikipedia and started a specific sports-related wiki for their excessive articles on people of no lasting importance.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bullying is exactly the right word for what these people are up to. Reyk  YO!  08:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * One appearance in first-class cricket is precisely what the notability guidelines require. If you wish us to include our two regular sources so as not to tally with WP:ONESOURCE, please let us know this needs to be done. Bobo. 15:29, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - Sorry but nothing supersedes our general notability guideline. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; if anyone can find a benefit from a poorly-sourced BLP (I take BLPs very seriously) that cannot be improved even after a WP:BEFORE search, please explain it to me because I am at a loss.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 04:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Claiming that this article is "poorly sourced" when it includes source material from four different places, including two "real-life" sources, is, frankly, dishonest and deceptive. What these endless AfDs have proven is that we need to be more vigilant as per using our two regular online sources as well as being able to find sources from elsewhere (especially in the "real world"). If you can find any better sources we can use, please suggest them, otherwise please don't claim that the article is "poorly sourced". Bobo. 15:43, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Bobo, there is no indication in references 1 or 4 that Dhanayake is mentioned. One would have to go to Colombo and read the 1991 copy in Sinhalese. Jack claims his friend did so. The article cited is about a match between two teams that did not include Panadura.  Yes, the article remains poorly sourced -- and now misleadingly sourced. Rhadow (talk) 16:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * That is an illogical argument. If every single one of us had to check every single reference on every single Wikipedia article, wouldn't that drive us insane? ;) The sources have been noted as necessary. I sympathize with this in a small way - but this is going to be true of every "real-life" source. Bobo. 16:27, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I hope I am permitted to note this. Looking at the delete !votes in this discussion gives us the following:
 * "Can't find additional sources to support notability" - issue has been sorted. Both our main sources have been quoted as well as real-life sources.
 * "Date of birth is unknown" - seriously?
 * "One appearance is magnitudes below notability guidelines" - patently false, as per WP:CRIN.
 * "Article is poorly sourced" - article includes two real-life sources and two internet sources, not all of which were present when the article was taken to AfD
 * The trouble with sending an article which categorically meets CRIN to AfD is that the "issues" get settled while an AfD debate is going on. I suggest that in the future, people bring these issues up before sending them for deletion, as most of these issues are easily sorted. Two of these issues have been seen to, one is currently inactionable based on the sources currently available, and one is false. This goes further to show why bright-line criteria are the only fair guideline. Also worth noting that biographical details on individuals such as Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) can be found in sufficient time. Bobo. 16:42, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You are free to note this but you literally only listed points you think you could argue. This list you provided here is by no means exhaustive of all the concerns editors have raised. Also, I ask you to please refrain from bludgeoning another discussion. I understand your opinion -- you have made it obvious plenty of times -- but excessively commenting on an AFD is disruptive.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:57, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * My concern here is that the votes are based not on whether the article is suitable for Wikipedia or not based on guidelines but on mostly actionable problems. I wish these problems could be brought to the attention of editors before the article(s) in question are sent for deletion. Bobo. 17:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * So which team did Dhanayake play for: Old Cambrians or Antonians S.C.? You don't have to go to Colombo or read Sinhalese to tell me whether the article is relevant. Rhadow (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Are you sure you can't tell which team Dhanayake played for based on the text within the article? It is fairly obvious from the text that Dhanayake played for Panadura Sports Club. Bobo. 17:08, 27 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - fails GNG. Merely having links to a couple of statistical database sources and a scorecard is insufficient to claim notability. Arguments to keep the article based on WP:NEXIST should be disregarded as the guideline states: once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Surely nine years is enough time for these sources to surface.  Dee  03  08:02, 28 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.