Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sujith 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 keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Sujith Fernando

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No secondary sources since 2009. None found in 2017. Fails WP:BLP1E. Rhadow (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * POINT OF ORDER. Disruptive nomination again by editor who has been warned for persistent misrepresentation of guidelines. Sportspeople are expressly outside scope of blpie and, like others, this afd is invalid. Jack &#124; talk page 23:17, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a legitimate point of order. Placing bogus warnings on peoples' talk pages just because you disagree with them on inclusion standards, then going around everywhere to yell "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED", is not proper procedure. Reyk  YO!  10:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Neither is WP:Wikistalking so I suggest you back off. The warning is legitimate because Rhadow has several times misrepresented BLP1E and other guidelines. If he refrains from misrepresentation in future then all is well and good. As for "proper procedure", you are one of the last people I would consult, with good reason. Jack &#124; talk page 11:57, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - it has been proven, time and time again, that CI and CA are sources maintained independently of the sport and each other, so this is an outright mistruth. If you wish to argue based on the fact that you believe one match to be too low a bar, individual AfDs are not the place to do it. Bobo. 15:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - interesting to note, however, that the birthdate which was - obviously - present on both sources when I originally set up the article eight years ago, is no longer present on either profile. I'm willing to remove this on account of the fact that it's not present on either source. Bobo. 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 15:44, 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)  09:50, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep per Bobo192. Nom rationale is invalid. Lepricavark (talk) 17:50, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Passes WP:CRIN. Johnlp (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge into a list of players by club. Raw statistics are not sufficent for a biographical article. Reyk  YO!  10:56, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. The article has THREE inline citations from independent reliable sources and, although there is limited information about the subject in English-language sources, WP:NEXIST applies because significant Sinhalese sources do exist and have been proven (see article footnote) to contain useful extra information. Note too that BLP1E is inapplicable to sportspeople so the nominator's rationale is invalid, especially as his other comments about "secondary sources since 2009" and "none in 2017" make no sense whatsoever. Finally, article passes WP:CRIN per Johnlp above. Jack &#124; talk page 13:25, 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 and 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 15:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Was thinking of NAcing this, but decided my head and neck look better before some zealot shows up. Thought about relisting, but this !vote of mine will be enough that the reviewing admin will probably accept. L3X1 (distænt write)  03:30, 1 November 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.