S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

3 distinct and separate issues here. The only one that I believe is relevant here, is that the closing admin, User:Sandstein, completely ignored the long–established and project–accepted notability guideline, that all players who've played at the first-class cricket level are notable. During the AfD, this guideline was mentioned, but the detailed WP:CRIN page was linked, which is on a WP:CRICKET page, and not the WP:NCRIC section on the WP:NSPORTS summary of all sports notability guidelines page (the basic content and intent of the 2 pages are identical, especially when applied to this player). When I queried this with the closing admin, he claimed not to know about the subject specific guidelines for athletes, which I find astounding for an 9-year admin who closes biographical AfDs.

The 2nd and 3rd issues are whether CRIN should be revised, and whether this player is himself notable. These should be, IMO, discussed at WT:CRICKET and at a relisted AFD, respectively. Personally, if this is the place to debate all 3 points, I am in favour of retaining CRIN as it stands, because until someone can review all relevant local newspapers and other references from the time contemporary to each player's playing era, the CRIN assumption that everyone who plays major cricket is notable, makes sense to me. Hence I am also in favour of all first class cricketers, even a single game player from Sri Lanka 25 years ago who we don't yet know his first name or date of birth, are notable enough for an article. I didn't notice the AfD so didn't vote in it, but if I did, I would've mainly focused on the CRIN/NCRIC guideline, which was disregarded anyway. The-Pope (talk) 12:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete Overturn and relist I supported the deletion of this article at the AfD based upon it failing to meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. However, on reading WP:N, it states that an article must meet GNG or a linked guideline, in this case the WP:NCRIC section of WP:NSPORTS. Given that S. Perera does meet NCRIC, GNG is irrelevant, and this article should have been retained. Harrias ^talk 12:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And this is a big problem at Wikipedia that has remained unaddressed for years: do subject-specific notability guidelines "trump" GNG? According to WP:N they do, but according to WP:NSPORT, for example, they don't: question 1 of the FAQ on the top of that page says, "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them." StAnselm (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree. But that is a discussion way beyond the purview of this forum. The guidelines need to internally consistent. In this case, the FAQ on WP:NSPORTS also says "Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find." And, in the lead of that guideline, "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline." I'm not necessarily using these to try and support my position, but to demonstrate how inconsistent the guidelines are. On that basis, at the moment, I think we would benefit from erring on the side of caution and remain inclusionist. After a suitable discussion about the consistency of the guidelines, probably as an RfC, further action could then be taken. Harrias ^talk 16:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete as they pass WP:NCRIC, and therefore should never have been deleted, per what User:Harrias said above. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing admin's comment: I stand by my closure. The notability guideline mentioned above wasn't referenced in the discussion, only an essay with a similar name, which is why I gave opinions based on the essay less weight. I am not familiar with all topic-specific notability guidelines for niche topics such as cricket, and assume that if any exist, they will be referenced in the discussion.

  Even though an actual guideline has now been identified, I think that the "delete" outcome remains correct: The problem identified by the majority "delete" opinions was essentially a WP:V issue: there is apparently so little information about this person that editors could not tell whether he was the same person as the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), which was uncontestedly deleted based on a similar discussion.

  The article read, in its entirety:

"S. Perera was a Sri Lankan cricketer who played for Old Cambrians. Perera made a single first-class appearance, during the 1991/92 season, against Antonians Sports Club. Batting in the tailend, he scored 7 runs in the first innings and 4 not out in the second. He took figures of 1-61 in the only innings in which he bowled."

The only cited source was cricketarchive.com, an apparently user-contributed website, which raises WP:BLP questions also. The minority "keep" side did not address the verifiability problems identified by the "delete" side, but instead argued on the basis of a guideline that can only indicate a presumption of notability. I agree with Spartaz who closed the other AfD (about perhaps the same person) that in such cases opinions based on core policies outweigh those based on notability guidelines, and therefore give the "keep" opinions less weight.  Sandstein  12:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Undelete following WP:NCRIC and note the poor response of Sandstein to the question being raised on his user talk page. The method of approach was unwise and I get why Sandstein was irked, but the reasoning he used re notability was clearly flawed based on the extra information presented to him, and the who-cares attitude in his response (my interpretation) reflects poorly on him. DRV should not have been needed here, Sandstein should have reversed his close as inconsistent with policy. I see he has posted here (I got an edit conflict) to argue for deletion based on WP:V, but the relevant references are probably in printed Sri Lankan newspapers. References are not required to be online. Keeping articles on cricketers with a single first-class appearance in Australia or New Zealand or England with an online newspaper reference in English but deleting articles for similar cricketers whose sole appearance was in the West Indies or Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka for lack of a convenient online reference (however it is dressed up) looks poor, in my view, even if the WP:V arguments never actually get to why convenient references are absent. EdChem (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion: The closing rationale was misguided. However, the old tradition had already been broken at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer). There it was rightly determined that the subject failed WP:GNG. According to WP:NSPORT, WP:NCRIC does not take precedence over WP:GNG, which is still a requirement for an article to be kept. But the wider community needs to sort out this confusion between GNG and subject-specific guidelines. StAnselm (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and relist Congratulations to Sandstein for not knowing all the notability guidelines – they are only there for guidance and he was there to assess the discussion, not the guidelines. However, the article needs to be discussed again to see whether there is satisfactory material for any sort of article (WP:V) even if this cricketer is inherently notable, and to reassess notability. Thincat (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Please undelete. There is a single, simple rule which can be made applicable for *every* situation. Setting arbitrary guidelines is not the way to go. I'm not trying to defend "my own" article, nor the hundreds of other articles I have created which fall under exactly the same criteria as S. Perera, but I feel consistency is important. If you wish to redraw the lines as regards subject specific notability (yes, I know WP:BIO trumps them all, but please stick with me), that could threaten hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on Wikipedia, not just in cricket, but in all four major North American sports as well as football.

If another argument is regarding the authenticity of Cricket Archive, once again, this will affect tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia, which would take more than a single AfD debate to fix. And surely in that case the burden of debate as to authenticity automatically relies on the questioner. As for "minority" keep, the original deletion discussion is completely without any form of rationale, one !vote is from an unregistered user, "User account "Rainbow unicorn" is not registered. If you wish to use "Rainbow unicorn" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username.", one is "as per" the unregistered user... remove these two delete votes, there are only two actual delete votes, one of which is from an IP address. I've never known these to be accepted. Bobo. 15:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note, "Rainbow unicorn" did exist at the time, but the account has since been renamed. Even if that were not the case, if the rationale is sound and there is no suspicion of sock puppetry, then it can be considered when determining consensus. StAnselm, who also supported deletion as a "per" is perfectly entitled to that position, even if the other user was a suspicious vote; they were simply stating their reasons for deletion. In any case, those actually took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), to which this review concerns. Harrias ^talk 16:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Literally can't read. Sorry Harrias. You are right. The fact that there have been two articles in a short space of time for cricketers with the same name... that confused me! :D Sorry. Should we bring the other article up for deletion review too? I could just copy and paste what I wrote above! ;) Bobo. 16:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Valid close but Relist - I believe that an AfD closer must determine the consensus outcome based on the strength of the arguments that were actually made in the discussion - not based on the arguments that should have been made. WP:NCRIC was not mentioned in the discussion, and for Sandstein to have relied upon it in closing would have amounted to a supervote. That said, it remains unclear whether the deletion of the article represents the wider consensus. How WP:NCRIC, WP:V and WP:GNG should interact in this specific case needs to be argued on the AfD page, not here. Thparkth (talk) 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I guess Relist Endorse - my mind has been changed by recent comments. My original comments and date stamp below. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

to my mind WP:SPORTCRIT is asking for rather more than WP:CRIN - and as the parent guideline it seems odd to me that that should be so. But that should probably be tested, hence the suggestion of relisting. Whether it will be is another issue. At the same time I would completely endorse the position taken by the closing admin on the AfD. The arguments made for delete, especially the final one, are strong imo. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I read a consensus to delete. Although I can't see the article, it sounds very much like a dearth of reliable secondary sources, and with a question on whether there are *any* reliable sources. Throws to a WikiProject guideline are not good enough. Even the proper sub-notability guidelines are presumptions that attempt to predict what will happen at AfD, once at AfD ou have to produce the sourcing evidence of notability. None was presented. Future attempts to recreate need to be based on better sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC) cricketarchive.com, as a user-contributed website, is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• CricketArchive is completely moderated and controlled by highly respected editors, its reliability is not at doubt, whatsoever. And, S. Perera is also listed at ESPNCricinfo (http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/50029.html) too. The-Pope (talk) 23:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed. CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo are no more "user-contributed" than the New York Times is. If CricketArchive isn't a reliable source then the majority of WikiProject Cricket's articles would have to be deleted. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if moderated and controlled (are they criteria for reliability?), the information contained is insufficient to verify, insufficient to exclude other "S Perera"s, and the combination of both sources (NB they appear to not be independent of each other) is insufficient material to start an article. The best that could be done is to add the name to a list of players on the cricket team. Fill out Old Cambrians Sports Club before creating biographies stubs of putative players. An article cannot be based on a single NYTimes article either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe and SmokeyJoe:, where have you got the idea from that CricketArchive is "user-contributed". That is nonsense. It has nothing to do with WP. It is independent and has nothing to do with ESPNcricinfo except in terms of rivalry, perhaps. In fact, they sometimes disagree and so the fact that they are in accord re Perera strengthens his verification because not one but two reliable sources agree that he played in a major match and so meets the SSC of NCRIC within WP:ATHLETE. For what it's worth, by the way, Perera is a common name and I would guess there are two people here, not one. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't even give the subject's name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, they don't even give his name? His name is Perera and his first name initial is S. His full first name and his date of birth are presently unknown and can be added later if found in another source. What the two independent and reliable sources give is verification that a man called S. Perera played in major cricket for the Old Cambrians and is therefore presumed to be notable per the SSC of WP:ATHLETE. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean it doesn't uniquely identify the subject, it doesn't even give the subject's name with enough detail to exclude a large number of other subjects. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The topic clearly fails WP:N. There is no encyclopaedic material to justify a standalone article. There is no secondary source information, just a bit of WP:PRIMARY source material. What information there is is appropriate for no more than a list. The arguments that the topic meets WP:NCRIC support the old arguments against the proliferation of notability subguidlines, and the tight control the community has maintained on admitting new subnotability guidelines. In recent years, the trend to merge subnotability guidelines into omnibus pages means an end-run around the community control of the detail of the guidelines. WP:NCRIC is obviously inadequate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist not considering the relevant subject-specific notability guideline is a significant flaw in the discussion and enough to justify revisiting the issue, although if we don't get better sourcing I imagine the article will have to be deleted under WP:V. This certainly doesn't look like the closing admin's fault though. Hut 8.5 23:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. The closer states that he gave no weight to WP:CRIN, but the applicable guideline, WP:NCRIC, cites WP:CRIN as a reliable explanation of the guideline, so it should not have been wholly discounted. However, before a keep decision can be reached, the basic BLP issues must be resolved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- There was clearly a consensus to delete. Claiming the close should be overturned because Sandstein did not rely on a subject-specific guideline that nobody mentioned in the debate is wrong. As is the assumption that SNGs trump the GNG. In any case, NCRIC sets the bar rather too low. Also, several participants in the AfD mentioned that there is not really anything to say about this cricketer. It was not even possible to distinguish him from possibly another cricketer with the same name. That's a strong argument for deletion and the closer did right to give it a lot of weight. Reyk _YO! 06:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states in bold: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". The "sport specific criteria" for cricket is in WP:NCRIC which references WP:CRIN "for further information" and states in bold that a cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire" (plus other criteria not at issue here). Major cricket matches include those which are officially first-class: i.e., a double innings game scheduled to take place over a period of three to five days between two teams of a recognised high standard. Any player who takes part in such a game is therefore a major player who meets the sport specific criteria for notability. Evidently, those involved in the AfD process for Perera only made reference to WP:CRIN and the closing admin saw this is a project-based guideline only because it is not the sport specific criteria (WP:NCRIC) stated in WP:Notability. Strictly speaking, he is correct but it is all very pedantic as, in fact, the content of WP:NCRIC has been copied verbatim from the opening paragraph of WP:CRIN. There is a clear lesson to be learned by WP:CRIC members which is to always cite WP:NCRIC at the outset and then to use WP:CRIN for further information. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Admins can't be expected to know everyone notability guideline and the issue wasn't helped here by people using the old shorthand (CRIN) instead the newer 'official' one (NCRIC). But when it's pointed out that the closure was based on a flawed assumption, you'd think the least that could be done would be to undo the closure. I am unconvinced by Sandstein's justification here, which strikes me as a good AfD vote but a poor closure, and to me it seems at least slightly hypocritical to say that you can't give NCRIC any weight because it wasn't mentioned while at the same time justifying your close by citing V and BLP when neither were mentioned by any of the participants. Additionally, CricketArchive is a completely reliable source as anyone who has even a vague understanding of the topic area would be able to tell you. Jenks24 (talk) 10:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see where Sandstein has cited V or BLP in the close, or in the discussion on their user talk page. Can you provide a diff? Reyk _YO! 11:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Above, where he wrote this EdChem (talk) 12:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • V and BLP are well known and it's safe to presume they inform all debates without need for explicit citation. NCRIC on the other hand is far less well known.SageGreenRider (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It would also be safe to assume that NCRIC is relevant to all debates about the notability of a cricketer, whether its explicitly cited or not. Anyway, I don't disagree with admins knowing policy and applying it in their closures, what I disagree with here is an admin who was made a closure based on an incorrect assumption and is unwilling to undo it when that's pointed out, saying that the exact guideline was not mentioned in the discussion. Instead, they have hypocritically justified their decision with policies that were not mentioned in the discussion. Jenks24 (talk) 11:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete per NCRIC. --Dweller (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. I see no point in relisting this one, as any discussion about NCRIC/CRIN should take place at the Cricket Project, not in the marginalia of an individual article. I think we should be discussing the restoration of S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) as well, as it was deleted under very similar circumstances. And maybe, if we have any Sri Lankan editors, we could ask them to investigate locally whether these are one and the same, or two different people. Johnlp (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I proposed the deletion because I believe NCRIC is only a guideline to be viewed in the larger GNG context. I'll allow a "Local boy makes good" article in the local rag. But GNG is more stringent than only one source. It insists on multiple, intellectually independent, reliable sources. It is not plausible that such sources exist in this case. SageGreenRider (talk) 00:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SageGreenRider we have two impeccable reliable sources for him already, Cricinfo and CricketArchive. --Dweller (talk) 09:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Read WP:ATHLETE and you will see in bold at the top that a person must meet either its SSC OR GNG in order to be presumed notable, not both. If he meets NCRIC, which he does, then GNG is superfluous and is irrelevant to discussions like this one or the AfD. As for multiple reliable sources, there are at least two with CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo in accord about the existence of this player and the fact he played in major cricket match. There are certainly others including Wisden and relevant Sri Lankan annuals, plus newspaper archives in a country where cricket receives extensive media coverage. Obviously, if anyone is able to find something in Wisden or in a local source, we will use it. In practice, however, where book sources are not to hand, we have to rely on the two online sources for WP:V and, in this case, they agree Perera was a major player. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No - GNG is the primary criterion - SSC is a short-cut to determining that the article probably meets GNG. What we call presumption of notability. The first section on that page after the lead says, "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." StAnselm (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. What people seem to be missing is that meeting some SNG is a rebuttable presumption of notability. Meeting one wikiproject's guideline does not ever guarantee an article. It can always be overruled if a consensus of editors decides blind adherence to some SNG would be a bad idea. That is what happened here. In fact, if some wikiproject's SNG tends to allow lots of essentially empty, unexpandable microstubs containing only statistical information (like this case) then that's an argument for tightening up the SNG, not for the production of more microstubs. Reyk _YO! 14:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I'm the IP user who voted "delete" on both S. Perera AfDs. The two main concerns with articles like these are WP:SINGLEEVENT and most importantly WP:PSEUDO. WP:PSEUDO says, "If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context". WP:SINGLEEVENT says, "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." In this case, as there is no article on the event (the first-class match), we may consider creating "List of cricketers who have played for Old Cambrians" and redirect S. Perera to that page. 117.192.162.174 (talk) 06:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. PSEUDO is an essay. SINGLEEVENT isn't relevant here: we're talking about someone taking part in sport at the top level in their country, not a news event. --Dweller (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yes, he is in the wrong area of NOTABILITY: it is ATHLETE that is relevant here, not SINGLEEVENT. PSEUDO is an opinion only, not even a guideline. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Although PSEUDO is an essay, it pretty much says the same thing SINGLEEVENT does. I don't know why SINGLEEVENT can not be applied here. He is notable only because of that one match and no other details are available for the person to warrant a separate article. WikiProject Cricket members are setting a bad example here trying to justify the creation of a substandard article which has no basic information about the subject. There are thousands of cricketers who have played several major cricket matches and are covered in various reliable sources, but we don't yet have articles about them. WikiProject Cricket seems to think that players with a single match appearance (especially the obscure ones with unknown first name and DOB) are more important than those with multiple appearances. 117.192.178.154 (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't mind if my opinion is given "lesser weight" or even "zero weight" just because I'm an IP user. I've been contributing to Wikipedia regularly for almost seven years now as an IP user. I'm here to improve already existing articles, not to attribute contributions to my name or anything else. Thank you, I'm out of this discussion. 117.192.178.154 (talk) 13:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't go! Most of us believe in WP:IPHUMAN and you can safely ignore those that don't SageGreenRider (talk) 13:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sources. Click here for the ESPNcricinfo record of S. Perera and click here for his CricketArchive record. Both of these are independent, reliable and reputable sources which are widely recognised throughout the world of cricket which is, incidentally, the world's second most popular spectator sport (after football). As for the match he played in, the scorecard is here. The match was in the Saravanamuttu Trophy which is a major domestic tournament in Sri Lanka and played at the Tyronne Fernando Stadium which has been used for Test cricket. The two available sources cannot be faulted and there are certainly many more book, magazine and newspaper sources which are not currently to hand. This man is a major cricket player who meets the SSC of WP:NCRIC within WP:ATHLETE. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment- the WP:NOT policy states that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". The only thing it is possible to say about this cricketer is statistics from the one second-tier game he played. There is no possibility of any sort of explanatory text. Therefore, this article should not be restored. Reyk _YO! 12:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was a stub which had not been enlarged but that could easily be done. For example, in my above entry I have commented on the Saravanamuttu Trophy and the Tyronne Fernando Stadium. It would be no problem to provide useful background information for the benefit of a reader who knows little about Sri Lankan cricket. There is, therefore, ample scope for explanatory text. In any case, assuming the article was written in a similar way to other stubs presently under discussion, the statistics are very briefly mentioned and so in their proper context already. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, I'm a cricket lover, but cases like this pretty much point to why the "one first class game and you're notable" notability guideline is a terrible idea. There's nothing here to build an article on, and a bare Cricinfo page with some statistics and nothing else doesn't even remotely qualify for meeting the GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• GNG is irrelevant here. He meets the SSC of WP:NCRIC in WP:ATHLETE and that is sufficient. A biographical article must satisfy either the SSC or the GNG, not both. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I am afraid you are misinformed - SSC are a guide to the sorts of articles that probably meet the GNG, not a replacement for the GNG. And to be frank, as the SSC allows biographies of living persons without much in the way of reliable sources to actually document them, it should be withdrawn and completely overhauled. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse. The close reasonably reflects the consensus of the participants. Note: I !voted to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Consensus is not the issue. The nominator is concerned about the failure to observe notability guidelines which is why so much of the discussion is focused on NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse When two guidelines conflict the closer has to look at wider community expectations as well has how the two guidelines interract in making the decision. In the case of Notability the GNG tends be a trump card. If an article fails an SNG but passes the GNG then it is generally kept as that is the overarching guide. For bios, the SNG is a guide to content that is likely to pass the GNG but cannot trump if the GNG is clearly shown to not be met. There is a list of precedents on this as long as my arm and endorsing the close on that basis is well within DRV normal outcomes and consistent with wider community expectations on sourcing bios. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Spartaz, Blue Square Thing and others... Those presenting this or considering this as an argument between GNG and project notability criteria, that's a false dichotomy. We have two reliable sources that consider this subject in detail, ie they dedicate at least one page to this person - in the case of Cricket Archive, several pages. Why is that not a sufficient claim to GNG - at least to be properly reassessed as such? --Dweller (talk) 15:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The GNG requires non-trivial coverage. That doesn't seem to exist. There simply isn't enough to hang a bio on based on the content of the article at the time of deletion. Do the sources actually have anything of consequence beyond this? Do we know where he coached? What education he had? How he got interested in cricket? Family? Influences on his game? I believe all of that is absent so my personal view is that GNG is not met here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) Because these "pages" consist of a single column of statistics in the case of cricinfo, and a single row of hyperlinks in the case of cricketarchive. By no objective standard is it possible to consider this detailed or significant coverage. The "several pages" on cricketarchive seems to be about two different people with the same surname and first initial. I'm honestly starting to wonder if this whole article and DRV is not just an experiment to see how much one can get away with around here. Reyk _YO! 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I take offence at that comment User:Reyk: "experiment to see how much bullshit one can get away with". I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not insult others or question their motives (and Mr IP, please don't question the order in which editors create articles - just thank them that they do create articles). As for your previous comment of "The only thing it is possible to say about this cricketer is statistics from the one second-tier game he played. There is no possibility of any sort of explanatory text." How can you say "no possibility"? GOOGLE DIDN'T EXIST BACK THEN. Of course we all know that there is a lack of information available now. Yes, it will be hard to find any more info - but I thought we were meant to try to start to address systemic bias, I'd always be more generous with articles like this than a similar player from Sussex or NSW. But despite all the mud chucking at the quality of CricketArchive, it is absolutely certain that a man named S. Perara played first class cricket (so WP:MUSTBESOURCES doesn't really apply). And yes, that's about all we know at the moment. As I wrote on WT:CRICKET this morning, the key question is does the NCRIC/CRIN SNG allow for that to be enough for now, or does GNG need to be met now. Half of us think one way, half the other. And I don't think we'll change many minds. But Sandstein's closing comment about CRIN "carries no particular weight" was improper and blatantly wrong. If he said "CRIN was considered but was outweighed by the lack of GNG, and I think that there is only a low chance that GNG will be met in the near future", I wouldn't have even listed it here. The-Pope (talk) 17:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't recall badmouthing CricketArchives. I described its pages about S. Perera as some statistical entries and links to match scorecards, which is exactly what they are. Why would you interpret that as "mud chucking"? Let's face the facts here. If it's not even possible to determine a person's given name from all the available sources, or to distinguish him from people with similar names, then there is not enough for an article. And if after a week of AfD and several days of DRV there's still only the two statistical entries at two websites whose business it is to collect all such statistics, then it's a fair bet that nothing more will ever turn up. Database entries of this kind are about the most trivial coverage imaginable. I struggle to imagine a source containing less actual content. So to hear them described as "consider[ing] this subject in detail" is astonishing. It's so completely out of touch with reality that I can genuinely only wonder what games are being played here. Reyk _YO! 18:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My reasoning is that I have significant concerns about the ways in which the guidelines for specific sports are being used and that the sourcing in this specific case is actually not really strong enough. When I look at WP:GNG I see a reasonable suggestion that notability needs to be shown with reference to multiple, non-trivial independent sources. When I look at WP:SPORTCRIT I see the same sort of thing - the idea of looking for multiple, independent, non-trivial sources to support an article. I accept that there can be difficulties with that, particularly outside the Anglophone areas of the globe and when delving further back in time. But SPORTCRIT, which is the basic notability standard for sports people, certainly seems to match quite well the way in which the GNG asks for support for an article. It then goes on to say that The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). (my emphasis). I read "likely to" as suggesting just that - certainly not that there is a necessity for them to meet the basic standards of notability. The reference to the Olympics is also quite interesting and may merit some discussion wrt whether first-class cricket (let alone List A etc...) necessarily is actually at the level which is suggested by it's direct parent notability criteria.

I then see a whole host of specific sport related criteria, including WP:NCRIC, which state that someone is "presumed notable" if they have taken part in an event at a set level. OK - but it strikes me as strange that suddenly we're losing any requirement for non-trivial, independent sourcing at this level of things. SPORTCRIT - the direct parent of NCRIC - wants it; the GNG wants it; but at the level of independent sports suddenly we don't seem to require it - simply a name on a scorecard, a football programme, on the back page of the EDP or whatever. That seems really odd and I'm not entirely sure what is intended when we do that - it feels like we're suddenly removing the key principles of non-trivial referencing (not to mention, in this specific case, the issue of verifiability).

I tend to think we need to get back to the GNG and SPORTCRIT (and, by the way, WP:BLP might come into play in this specific case - but we actually don't know because the sourcing is so sketchy...) and look for non-trivial sourcing rather more with this sort of article. I wonder, incidentally, how many people have been involved in the development and use of the GNG? I would suggest that it has had a much more significant involvement than the development of individual sports notability criteria - I wonder, for example, whether it is possible for a very small number of editors to develop a sports notability criteria in such a way as to allow massive inclusion when the direct parent (SPORTCRIT) and the overarching GNG are essentially subject to much wider scrutiny. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist The relation of the gng to the subject specific guidelines in sports is disputed, but in some cases it is clear that meeting the subject specific guideline is enough, as for Olympic athletes. The arguments here belong in the AfD, and if we need a RfC on sports guideline, then we should have one. An admin unfamiliar with the relevant guidelines should not close an afd discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse and relist. Weakish sources have been now provided and meets a SNG which really didn't get discussed. Let's see where this goes now that we are more likely to have a fully informed discussion. Basically agree with the reasoning of Hut 8.5. Hobit (talk) 17:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close was a reasonable summary of the discussion. What's puzzling is why the cricket project considers such an ephemeral club to be first class. Andrew D. (talk) 17:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't up to us, it's an official designation. It simply is first-class. Consideration doesn't come into it. Harrias ^talk 18:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is silly. What harm does this article do? Wikipedia is not paper; if you don't want to read about an obscure Sri Lankan cricketer from the 1990s, please read something else. This is not an indiscriminate collection of statistical data: it is a very short biography containing the sourced and verifiable information known about one particular notable person.

We clearly have a person who played in the highest level of domestic cricket in Sri Lanka (that is, a first-class cricket match). They even scored some runs, and took a wicket! That is clearly enough to make someone notable. (There are a few "one-match wonders" who played in first-class matches without batting, bowling or taking a catch, and I would say they are notable too; a fortiori the many One-Test wonders.) We just don't have the sources to say much about this particular person, or even to confirm if they might be the same person as one of the other people called "S. Perera" who played another first-class cricket match (that is not a problem: as happens when we find we have two article about the same subject in other circumstances, we can just merge them together later if necessary). Obscurity and difficulty of finding sources does not mean non-notable. We suspect that there will be some coverage about him in the contemporary sources in Sri Lanka. But as this was in 1991-2, those sources are likely offline in a library somewhere in Sri Lanka. (In the UK, you could go to one of the online databases of historic newspapers, such as the British Newspaper Archive. But in this case that option does not help - unless a helpful Sri Lankan editor can point us at their online archive? No? Shame: so cricketers from the global south or from the pre-internet age are less notable than cricketers with equivalent achievements from the global north or previous decades, eh?)

Compare A. Haslam, a person who captained a team that won an Olympic gold medal in 1900, and yet some sources doubt that he was even called "A. Haslam". Perhaps he was "HA Harlan" or "HN Haslow".[1] Perhaps something else. Can anyone say for sure? When was he born, when did he die? What other matches did he play in? What education did he have? Who were his family, etc, etc. We just don't know. The paucity of information in the available contemporary sources is striking: very little attention was given to the second Olympiad, and the football was billed as just a minor international match played between an existing team from each of the three participating countries, not even proper national sides. So is this a "one event" situation where there is insufficient coverage about this person in reliable secondary sources, so this Olympic medal winner is non-notable? (That would be ridiculous.) Or should we assume notability, on the basis that the person is clearly notable and better sources may be discovered one day? And if that is the case here, why not for this first-class cricketer?

Look, we have a whole category tree of unidentified people. Who was the person from Porlock? Did they even exist? Who was the Falling Man? The fact that we cannot say very much about them does not mean they are not notable. This is just the sort of entry that a comprehensive enyclopedia should contain. Ferma (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We don't delete articles because we're running out of paper or server bandwidth. We delete them as service to our readers. "What," you say, "a service?" Yes, a service. The most basic piece of information about a topic that our readers want to know is "Is it important?" "Is this person notable?" If there's an article here, the answer is yes. If you want an indiscriminate collection of information, use Google. The test we use is substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is substantial coverage in reliable sources of the falling man, the man from Porlock, and Olympic gold medallist and team captain A. Haslam. In those cases the sources are to hand and cited in the article and verifiable. The problem with S. Perera is that is implausible that his cricket appearance ever produced substantial coverage in reliable sources and even less plausible that such source will ever surface for verification. The lack of identification is not a problem in itself. The problem is it presents an insurmountable barrier to ever overturning the consensus of this community that the subject is not notable by our definition. SageGreenRider ^talk 21:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that an English cricketer who played in one first-class match (and happens to appear in a couple of contemporary newspaper reports that we can find) is more notable than a Sri Lankan player (who probably did appear in similar Sri Lankan newspapers, but we can't locate the reports). If so, way to go in countering systemic bias in our coverage! If playing first-class cricket in England is a clear indication of notability, the same must apply in Sri Lanka (or Bangladesh, or Zimbabwe, or anywhere else).

This article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is a discriminating collection of information that is contextualised and categorised. The existing guideline very clearly selects only cricketers who have played first-class cricket (that is, the highest form of domestic cricket) or the more significant forms of international cricket, or those who otherwise qualify under a more general heading. We know that a player called "S. Perera" played first class cricket. That creates a presumption that they are notable.

As to the "substantial coverage in reliable sources" of A. Haslam, what "substantial coverage in reliable sources"? The sole reference in our article as it stands, sports-reference.com? That just repeats the same sort of bare bones facts derived fom primary sources that Cricinfo and CricketArchive have for S. Perera (but note that the biographical pages for S. Perera on Cricinfo and CricketArchive are secondary sources, just like sports-reference.com: the primary source is the scorecard). If that is the basis for saying S. Perera is not notable, then clearly A. Haslam (or whatever his name is - see above) is not notable either. Ferma (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Its a collection of information that does not even have the name and date of birth of the player. That's not systemic bias - its a simple lack of data on which to hang an article. If an English cricketer was in the same boat we shouldn't host that article either. 62.25.109.196 (talk) 10:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "What harm does this article do?" It is not about harm, but about organisation. The material belongs in a list, not in a standalone article. There is no encyclopedic prose content, and there is no sign that there ever will be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• "What harm does this article do?" It is not about harm, but about organisation. The material belongs in a list, not in a standalone article. SmokeyJoe and I have disagreed regarding much lately, but these 25 words of Joe's represent what everyone should be thinking when we are presented with an article that relies entirely on a specific notability guideline coupled with statistical compilations and lists, and for which no significant coverage actually exists. Under those circumstances, and when the subject clearly fails the general notability guidelines, then the logical outcome is to merge the basic details to a related list article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Which list? List of Old Cambrians cricketers? List of Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketers? Both as different people? Both as the same person? The problem is we don't even know who the person is nor are we likely ever to. SageGreenRider ^talk 00:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Old Cambrians Sports Club is the article that anyone interested in contributing to Old Cambrian former team members should be pointed to. If these cricketers are notable, then they should be listed in that article, or a subarticle of it. Any context for S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) would be expected to be at that article. If this cricketer is not worth a mention there, or in a subarticle of it, then isn't it obvious that it is not appropriate to write an orphan biostub? I think interested editors need to flesh out the material on the old clubs, then the teams, and move to spinning out bios only when the team articles are large. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing.—Jimbo Wales. WP:PURPOSE. There is no reason to remove reliably sourced material. And our SNG specifically says we can have this article. That some old ball player doesn't belong on the Cubs page doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article on them. Same thing would seem to apply here. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there is only primary source data, the information belongs in a list, not a standalone article. And we don't even know the subjects name. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Mechanical failure (Helping my opponents here and supporting Sandstein's good faith) I just noticed that the older WP:CRIN shortcut does not work correctly on some browsers. On some browsers it goes to a bland project page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket on others it goes to the anchored and more relevant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cricket#CRIN . The two are several scroll screens apart. In any case WP:NCRIC works best. hth SageGreenRider ^talk 03:25, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the CRIN shortcut brings me to the top of the page; it seems that redirects to sections don 't work any more on my browser (Chrome). I'll see if I can log that as a MediaWiki bug somewhere.  Sandstein  09:25, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein, I suspect the problem is with the out-of-control proliferation of shortcuts, and editors lack of understanding of the differences between shortcuts, links with a # tag, anchors, and linkboxes. There are too many shortcuts. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:59, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Spartaz is exactly right. The notion that anyone who meets NCRIC should be automatically kept is faulty. NCRIC, like all other sport notability guidelines, is a rule of thumb to indicate whether a subject is likely to meet GNG; in this case, whether the subject meets GNG is in serious doubt, NCRIC notwithstanding. This may mean NCRIC is overinclusive; it may mean NCRIC is generally right but wrong in this particular case (as sometimes happens with other sports-specific guidelines); it may mean NCRIC is right and the subject does in fact meet GNG, but there's no consensus that this is the case here. Just as athletes who meet NFOOTY or NTRACK or any other NSPORT guideline can be (and are) deleted if the consensus is that they do not meet GNG, the same applies to NCRIC.

Ultimately, NCRIC (like other sport-specific notability guidelines) is nothing more than the basis for an argument that says "I think the subject meets GNG because he meets NCRIC"; it is not an argument that must necessarily be accepted, even though the acceptance of NCRIC as a guideline indicates that most of the time it is a good argument.

If anybody wants to question NCRIC itself, they should take the matter up at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) and discuss whether the guideline needs to be changed; while single cases of players who meet NCRIC being deleted as failing GNG do not demonstrate that NCRIC is faulty, if it happens over and over again (or you think it should) that's another matter. Sideways713 (talk) 14:22, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Reading the discussion delete seems like an acceptable result. GNG has always trumped SNG. AIRcorn (talk) 22:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - This article and the resulting AfD and this DRV point to the inherent flaws in several of the WP:NSPORTS specific notability guidelines: if a subject such as "S Perera," for whom we know almost nothing -- no first name, no nationality, no birth date, no birth place, no death date, no death place, no personal history -- beyond his participation in a single "major" cricket match, and about whom no one can produce a single sentence of prose, let alone several examples of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, there is something inherently wrong with the specific notability guideline. The only source for this subject is a single cricket statistics website, and this is not the only similar example of a cricket player or other athlete in indentical circumstances. It's past time to acknowledge we have a problem here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:27, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]