Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A. Amaranath

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. From my reading of the discussion, I think the consensus is that meeting a sub-guideline for notability like WP:NCRIC is insufficient without any reliably sourced biographical information. A Train^talk 09:21, 14 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A. Amaranath

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This biography of a living person (probably) is insufficiently referenced since 2009. It fails WP:V; it has no inline citations. It appears cricketarchive is a primary source. One appearance fails WP:BLP1E. For a person whose first name is unknown, WP:NODEADLINE is being stretched; it appears NEVER. Rhadow (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Rhadow, CricketArchive is NOT a primary source and there can be no possible basis for suggesting it might be. Your comment is misleading. I also suggest that you calm down and show respect for WP:NODEADLINE. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:39, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacking reliable sources means it fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. If the person cannot even be reliably identified then as a topic he or she falls short of notability guidelines and WP:V a core content policy. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles need to have secondary sources. This article essentially violates the principals of no original research.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we simply don't know enough about the chap and I am unconvinced that notability can be established through sufficiently detailed, non-routine secondary sources. It's possible that this may be doable through Sinhalese press sources or the archives of Singha CC, in which case I would be perfectly happy for someone to re-create the page. I feel the chances that suitable sources will be found within a reasonable timeframe to be unlikely however - based on a lack of biographical detail about the chap (full name, date of birth etc...) - and his CricInfo profile tells us only that he played his single first-class match a wicket-keeper as additional information; as a result, on judgement, this should be deleted. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:18, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough verifiable information, can be recreated if sources are found Atlantic306 (talk) 16:38, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list of Singha Sports Club cricketers, if such a thing exists. Otherwise delete. As Steve Quinn says, and as I've been saying for years, biographical articles based on sourcing so insignificant that the subject can't be reliably identified, are more trouble than they're worth. Reyk _YO! 10:11, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna and Wikipedia: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 | ^{talk page} 10:42, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article has, rightly, been tagged for lack of inline citations and that is the only thing needed. AfD is a knee-jerk response. Jack | ^{talk page} 10:48, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee 03 12:01, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still does not meet our general notability guideline. We should not have to dig around in original research just to confirm this person's existence. BLPs deserve higher quality than this. Obviously, these articles are not "consistently" kept and copy-and-pasting the same exact argument across cricket-based AfDs does not make it any more compelling.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm coming at this from discussions on notability guidelines elsewhere, but has there been a proper attempt to find offline sources per WP:BEFORE? This article does meet the presumed notability set by NSPORT, and thus appropriate for a stand-alone. But the nom or those !voting delete should be discussing their lack of ability to show that no other sourcing exists, not just what the current state of sourcing is. I'm inclined to believe there is little (region + only played one game), but there is a process set forth by WP:BEFORE that hasn't been followed that I can tell. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for this. I can confirm that I've carried out part D.1 of BEFORE - I did it previously and have just repeated it with some other search terms. That's the minimum that can be expected. GBooks in particular doesn't come up with anything remotely helpful for searches such as Amaranath Singha Sports Club or Amaranath cricket singha. If there were a greater number of games played and/or seasons played in then I think I'd be happy to presume Sinhalese sources might exist; if we knew anything other than a surname and initial I might do likewise. In this situation, where we just don't have very much verifiable information about the bloke, it's very difficult to source anything much beyond that - and I'm not sure which part of BEFORE suggests that offline sources must be used fwiw. I'm not convinced that effective sources exist in cases like this (where so little is known about the subject) - certainly I can find no reference to book sources that might deal with Sri Lankan domestic cricket in 1992 or 1993 beyond one that's made up of Wikipedia articles... Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - The idea with offline sources here is that this person played in 1992-1993, before the Internet and Google were "a thing". Google and other search engines are slowly backfilling paper references but they are not there yet. As such, I would expect a reasonable BEFORE search to include a search of local/regional newspapers and magazines to see if there is anything else. If this person had played in 2002-2003, a decade later, I would fully agree a lack of online hits likely indicates no sourcing exists. --MASEM (t) 17:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Masem: Oh, I understand that, which is why a GBooks search is important to do. I've looked at what limited other resources I can fine - both printed and e-Book. As I say, if it's a someone with 20 appearances over three seasons then I think it's reasonable to assume that we'd find something useful in written sources - in this case I think we've probably gone beyond what's strictly necessary and probably, without going into Sinhalese sources, exhausted the routes open to us. It's notable, perhaps, as well that Sinhalese wikipedia has nothing else to add on the subject of the article under discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:25, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redirect to suitable target. @Dee03:, @TheGracefulSlick:, @Johnpacklambert:, @Steve Quinn:, @Rhadow:, @Blue Square Thing: Why not have a list something like that List_of_minor_planets:_316001–317000#084 for cricket biographies and redirect them there than discussing every single of them waisting a lot of time and energy. There are tens of thousands of cricket biographies and we can't discuss every single of them. We should devise an alternate guidelines or methodology which we can follow directly without need for lengthy discussions. Hope, we will have consensus. This is more likely to be deleted as current situation suggests. I don't think we will able to find any alternative way for these database entries. I tried but no such consensus developed. Fails WP:GNG as simple. Greenbörg (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- As @Reyk: suggests above, merging (I would suggest there's so little content that redirecting might be more sensible) to a list of Singha Sports Club cricketers might be sensible. I don't think such a list exists in this case, although it's one that could be created. That way once suitable sources were found the article might be developed. There's also the possibility of an article such as List of Major League Baseball players with unidentified given names. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:35, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, But this is not a long term solution. We can't redirect when a cricketer has played for multiple cricket teams. Then, also we will lose the information about his full name, when he was born, for which team he played and so on. Rhadow solution is workable one and therefore I agree with him. Greenbörg (talk) 17:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Greenbörg: I'm not sure that any of the players we'd want to include would have played for multiple teams, would they? Primarily we're looking at players without a known given name with one appearance? You can try the suggestion if you like, but I have a feeling the name of the article might cause some problems - lesser known is subjective and requires interpretation. I'd recommend one similar to the MLB article above which has a title which is clearly objective. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

- - - More likely the title should say single appearance or without press coverage. The first initial is an indicator, but not a predictor, of no press coverage. The underlying problem is the definition of notable. In the West Indies, a player is either a club player or an international player. There isn't national level play. Rhadow (talk) 19:51, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Perhaps List of lesser-known Sri-Lankan cricketers, which could include the paragraph summing up the score card. That way we don't lose the work the fans have put into the articles, which do not have sufficient references to achieve WP:GNG on their own. Redirect each as it is discovered, without dramatic discussion. Rhadow (talk) 16:30, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhadow: Perfect. In this case, we can have a list like List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers: A and put the content of a lesser-known cricketer whose surname starts with A there with a section to his name. This way we will have his name in the categories, other lists for the teams he played and later can have a stand-alone article when we have multiple sources. Greenbörg (talk) 17:26, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If this proposal is accepted, we can REFUND the following, MERGE the paragraph and reference to List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers, and leave the original article as A REDIRECT. I may need some help with the MERGE so we retain ten years history. Rhadow (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
U. Hettiarachchi
P. de Silva
U. Chandana ‎
J. Aponso
B. Abeywickreme ‎
D. Abeyasekera
J. Bandujeewa

You cannot be serious with this proposal. Who gets to decide who is "lesser-known"? Lesser known to whom? You can't change the title to single appearance because there are plenty of players in many sports who made only one appearance but who are fully deserving of articles and whose articles are more formed. You can't use without press coverage because you're making a presumption that Sri Lankan newspaper coverage of cricket and cricketers is either absent or less than that of, say, US college baseball players: I'd agree that, for me at least, it's less accessible, but I don't presume to know whether it's non-existent. You seem to want to create a new article that no one will ever look for merely for the satisfaction of deleting an article that, while inadequate, does at least serve a purpose. I thought we were here to create an encyclopedia, which is inherently in a perpetual state of unfinishedness, not a mausoleum-style filing system, with everything tidied up in an immutably deadly fashion. Johnlp (talk) 20:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm tickled by the fact that since I recently removed all my created articles from my watchlist, I never saw these seven articles being deleted. Not complaining, just tickled. This is precisely my problem with randomly deciding to delete some cricketers who clearly reach WP:CRIN and not others. If people simply stuck to brightline criteria this would not happen. If people really wanted to create an article called Cricketers nobody has heard of therefore delete omg wtf bbq, then this is fair enough. If people could do such a simple thing as sticking to brightline criteria, none of these debates would happen. As John says, the primary aim here is of creating an encyclopedia - and if we are deleting articles willy nilly, then a policy as painfully simple as NPOV, is served up as worthless, and renders the job of people who actually care about the project, as worthless. Bobo . 18:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. From the above, it'll not surprise that I vote to keep. No, this isn't a satisfactory article, but the presumption has to be that it can be made satisfactory at some stage with more information. Meanwhile, why not flag it with a category for "Sri Lankan cricketers with incomplete names", draw the category to the attention of Sri Lankan editors with access to non-English sources, and see what that might produce? Johnlp (talk) 20:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. SNGs allow for the presumption of notability so we don't CSD or PROD-tag them too hastily, but ultimately the person must pass GNG. Multiple RFCs have confirmed this. One statistical entry on Cricket Archive, especially an incomplete entry, and no in-depth sources, is simply not enough to pass GNG. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:48, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Anyone who knows a single thing about cricket could easily add a second. WP:ONESOURCE has become a very contentious issue recently but where cricket articles are concerned, this is a painfully easy problem to fix. Why didn't I do it at the time? Force of habit. Sorry. Bobo . 18:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The presumption of notability based on what? There is nothing to base any presumption on. Someone noted the paywall reference is incomplete. So the only reference, which is arguably a primary reference being closely associated with the sport, is also incomplete. And thank you PMC for showing how SNGs rely on GNG. SNGs are not a free pass. Common sense is also a guide in this situation, which tells me what is lacking about this subject, and that is in-depth sources. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:00, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The presumption of notability is based on WP:NCRIC, which presumes notability for cricket players who have appeared in first-class or List A cricket, as defined by the international authorities. SNGs should assist the GNG but they do not "rely" on it; they enable the input of subject specialists into the generality of the GNG to create some kind of equivalence between different areas of notability. WP:NCRIC, like several other sports SNGs, sets a threshold that is easily verified and enforced, and Amaranath meets it. This article's problem is incompleteness, not non-notability. Johnlp (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far, it has not been determined what the subject has "appeared" in, nor for how long. More reliable sources are needed for verification, per WP:NRV. Was it like five minutes this person appeared, was it ten minutes? This is not an either/ or situation - and that SNG is not there to take the place of GNG. Nor does it take the place of "Applicable policies and guidelines" on the NSPORTS page:

...Standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline. Information about living persons must meet the more stringent requirements This article does not meet the more stringent requirements of WP:BLP. It is far from it.

Also Basic criteria says, A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of multiple published; non-trivial; secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion... It says "likey" which also means "maybe" or "possibly". But the main theme is the need for high quality independent reliable sources, not some paltry statistic board or score card.

This tunes me in to look for indications of notability. If there are no indicators then appropriate action needs to happen. Also, it keeps me from CSDing the article or PRODing the article. Indeed, this article is at a very low standard pertaining to sourcing, far below what Wikipedia strives for. There is no indication that better sourcing for verification of notability is available per WP:NRV. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Hold on a cotton pickin' second (best possible hillbilly voice). I have an alternate theory. Perhaps the entire problem is that some people (as above) consider Cricket Archive and Cricinfo to be primary sources which have some (internal) connection to the sport. (This is certainly a possibility based on at least one comment above). Is there any need to provide evidence to the people that these databases are in fact independent of anything to do with the sport and yet still have statistical and editorial credence (independent of each other)?

@Rhadow:, I hope you know I mean no harm by this query. But we all know that it is CA and CI which are predominantly quoted on the site as references. Bobo . 18:24, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment --- It's 1989, so I bet this is how statistics work in Singha: a statistician uses Lotus 123 and creates a package for the game. He prints it out and mails it to Colombo. Every player is listed by surname, first initial. A couple of times during the season, someone in Colombo photocopies the stack of papers and sends it to CricketArchive, or wherever. Eventually someone keypunches it all into a crude database. For better known players, the first initial gets translated into a name. For the cricketers with one appearance, the initial is all they have to go on. No birth date, nothing. It's not as if CA or CI sent someone to Singha or Galle to collect stats or act as sporting press. Both are working with the same raw material. As long as the transcription was error free, they will agree. The data form may have changed, but fundamentally the score cards are a copy of a copy of the primary source. Rhadow (talk) 19:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is why there is a need for multiple reliable sources independent of the subject so notability can be definitively verified. Cricket players do not get a free pass. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 04:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Seeing these discussions centring round Sri Lankan players with no forename or DoB, I ultimately see no difference between them and players from other countries where CricketArchive and Cricinfo do have these rudimentary pieces of information (and nothing else). The only difference is the data collection that Cricket Archive rely on is slightly better, the notability or otherwise of the 2 players is the same. Does anyone actually know how cross-referenced the 2 databases are? If they are both using the same source of information (or if one copies from the other) then should they ultimately be considered one source? Spike 'em (talk) 09:55, 12 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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.