Please forgive me, this is a long and frustrating read because this article goes deeper than a single AfD decision.
The articles for various cricketers were sent to PROD - those belonging to A. Devapriya, K. de Silva, N. Fernando and N. Kumara, back in March 2010, in spite of each of the cricketers meeting long-established notability guidelines. I re-added these four months ago
The article belonging to S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) was sent to AfD - nearly five years later, albeit by a different user. I reinstated this article along with the other four, following discussion here. Naturally, this cricketer passes these long-held notability guidelines, similar to every other team sporting guideline, that a single appearance in a major competition is enough to establish notability. (Statistics here). There are thousands of articles like this on Wikipedia, those of cricket players with a single major cricketing appearance, and every single one has been allowed to expand and thrive as an individual article - similar to single-appearance biographies in almost every team sport. Hence the reason for his addition.
I concede that the closing admin here had a difficult decision to make considering the views put forward on the AfD page - however I do not consider the deletion rationales to be watertight. All the original deletion rationale claims is "Non-notable BLP". Which is scant - and unqualified - justification for sending an article which clearly meets long-accepted guidelines - to which we have held ever since the establishment of Wikiproject Cricket, as has every other competitive team sport - to AfD, especially since the rationale quotes no policy. Nor would it presumably be given adequate weight as a deletion rationale by a casting !voter by a closing admin, as the vote would quote no single guideline. The discussion included the point that "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." I thereby considered, perhaps the reason the article was being sent for deletion was purely the pluralization of the word "source"! Perhaps if we had included a link to a second source, this would have satisfied the "single source" deletion rationale.
Along followed a debate on the AfD page in which the long-established guideline of WP:CRIN - which has never done us harm up until now - was quoted - that the article "technically met cricket biography notability guidelines", but that these were "only guidelines" (two quotes from the same user).
Anyhow, following much discussion, which included delete votes put forward by an IP address, as well as an account which we have been unable to trace, the article was deleted.
While fearing this article would be speedily deleted under CSD G4, I reinstated this (link to the Undelete logs) in May 2017, based on a discussion which took place here, alongside the four previously PROD-ded articles. While not deleted there and then, the article was speedily deleted four months later (is that a contradiction in terms?) under exactly the CSD criterion I feared.
My main point is that most of the deletion !votes - as well as the rationale of the closing admin - in the 2015 deletion debate - based primarily on the fact that "we do not have basic details like date of birth", quoted three times by the IP address, are weak or invalid.
In conclusion, I feel this article should be reinstated, based on weak, and invalid, deletion rationales, the fact that the article categorically meets inclusion criteria, and the fact that I believe there was no clear consensus in the AfD discussion. This article deletion has proven a net negative to our project, where we now fear that every article which meets the same criteria may suffer the same fate. Bobo.10:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- the consensus at the AfD was clearly to delete, and there was nothing wrong with the later speedy deletion. I think both decisions reflected the state of the article and the opinions of the AfD participants. As the closing admin pointed out, the actual problem is one WikiProject elevating its own, overly inclusive, standards over WP:GNG, which is accepted Wikipedia-wide.
The article was little more than a few database entries inflated grotesquely. It was not even possible to determine the player's first name. Turning raw stats into prose in this manner leads to possible BLP issues, because it's easy to be tempted to introduce unsubstantiated material. Examples, which have actually happened, include asserting a player is retired, or still living, when there's no way to tell that from the source material. Or when it's not clear whether two stats pages are referring to one player competing for two clubs, or two similarly named people playing for one team each. This of course leads to BLP issues.
The best way, IMO, to present raw stats is in the form of a list. I would support the creation of List of Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketers where these bare numbers could be listed in full, allowing the comparison of similar entries, and avoiding the trap of saying more in prose than the sources do. Genuinely notable players would be blue linked, of course.
Finally, I am aware that endorsing the AfD is likely to make me the target of further harassment and abuse, but that is no reason to avoid speaking my mind. My opinion on this matter is legitimate regardless of what my detractors may think. ReykYO!11:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, while I generally don't understand how this procedure works, I suggest that given our considerable interaction, this should recuse you from the discussion. Bobo.11:17, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) You'll find I didn't nominate the original AfD, and didn't vote on it, so I'm as uninvolved as can be. Your subsequent actions are an unrelated, behavioural, matter. Since your repetitious complaints about this AfD served as a distraction from your behavioural issues at the ANI, I could just as easily accuse you of being involved and therefore lacking standing to bring this DRV. But I'm not a wikilawyer. My !vote here stands. This will be my last reply to you on the topic. ReykYO!11:36, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as deleting admin, Bobo's comments referring to long established guidelines are illuminating. The idea that all first class cricketers are inherently notable is long entrenched but does not reflect the tightening up of standards around bios and bops in particular that has happened in recent years. So we have an sng in conflict with wider community expectations shown in blp/gng/n. Bobo's would argue that CRIN has priority but is is a long established principle that wider community requirements have precedence. Therefore this was an inadequately sourced bio and in closing I gave weight to arguments reflecting wider community norms rather than narrow subject based views out of kilter with community wide expectations. Reyk is correct that a list is the appropriate solution. SpartazHumbug!11:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How much more "adequately sourced" would you want the article to be? The fact that we included two sources which are universally agreed amongst the cricket Wikiproject to be satisfactory, disproves this. In what way was this article "inadequately sourced"? Bobo.11:48, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the closer was a bit harsh on the Keep commenters in that AfD. The subject here is an athlete from a developing country where English is not the main language and he was active about 20 years ago. This suggests that Googling by Western English speakers may not provide a particularly comprehensive view of the available sources. The closing statement refers to "detailed examination of the article" but this is probably all that was done. SNGs are particularly valuable in those situations as they indicate where sources are likely to exist (the article did have enough sourcing to verify that the subject met the SNG). Given that I think it was reasonable to argue that the article should be kept on the grounds that the subject met the relevant SNG, just as it is reasonable to argue the opposite. Several of the Delete arguments are weak or dubious. Hut 8.512:11, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
True, but in this situation we could plausibly discount the comment from the IP. The "untraceable account", Rainbow unicorn, has since been indefinitely blocked for abusive sockpuppetry (the account has been renamed, which is why it doesn't immediately appear). That does bring into question whether the IP is a sockpuppet. Hut 8.506:37, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus to be clear. I think that's a better reading of the discussion, particularly if we assign reduced weight to the possible sockpuppetry. Hut 8.507:02, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Spartaz, what did you mean when you responded to my comment about "every first-class cricketer having an article except this guy" when you responded "not unless they have sourcing"? Given the sources that you were aware were present on the article, please would you explain what is wrong with these sources? If there is a fundamental problem with these sources, then there is a fundamental problem with sourcing on 90 percent of cricket articles.
You left a suspiciously lengthy justification on the deletion conversation which mentioned nothing to do with the sourcing, and now you are claiming that the "inadequate sourcing" is the problem. As far as I can tell, in this case, the problem is that you feel the article was not sourced, which anyone who is able to access the article can clearly see it was. Bobo.13:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As a fair reading of the consensus. While there is some debate over whether individual SNGs override the broad GNG guidelines (WP:PROF being one I participated in recently) it is made pretty clear at WP:NSPORTS that the sport specific notability guidelines are a guide to help people decide if something might be notable, not an automatic inclusion. This was pointed out at the discussion. It was also pretty clear from that discussion that this article only just met the SNG and was not even close to the GNG. Those !votes that simply said that it meets WP:NCRIC without indicating how the article also complies with the GNGs were rightly given less weight. AIRcorn(talk)06:54, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse mostly per Aircorn. The speedy deletion was appropriate as the two states of the article were, for all intents and purposes, the same. The AfD discussion was also closed appropriately, with respect to the arguments made and the import of the quoted guidelines. Harriastalk11:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorseOverturn to no consensus mainly per Hut 8.5 pointing out the socking. It wasn't known at the time, but it cast doubt on at least two of the keep !votes. FWIW, yes, SNGs are equal to the GNG based on the actual guideline, which is WP:N. NSPORTS has chosen to subjugate itself to the GNG, but that is not what the community wide policy is. You have a tension between WP:N and WP:NSPORTS on this one, with the former considering the latter equivalent to the GNG, but the latter saying the GNG take prominence. That makes sports AfDs difficult to deal with. If it weren't for the socking, I'd have called this no consensus.TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC as far as I an tell the SNG and GNG run on parallel tracks here. What I mean is that NSPORTS doesn't specifically defer to the GNG (" 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, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." So an argument that the topic meets the SNG is just as valid as one that says it meets the GNG (as long as it's true). I do think in this case there could be an argument that this person shouldn't have an article. He did participate, but only just barely. Seems like a bit too low of a bar IMO. But the right place to debate this is at the SNG or the AfD. And if you weigh the SNG and GNG arguments equally, there is no consensus to delete. And that's without considering the socking issues. Hobit (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Just barely" is not the point - and in any case, unverifiable. We are looking at absolutes - yes and no - and not cloudy "maybe" criteria. "Just barely" is yes. Bobo.00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be. The SNG gives room for not including everyone who meets it. Quite specifically. And this case (very minor player on a fairly minor team) seems like a good case for using that discretion. I'd likely !vote to delete on that basis (meets the letter of the SNG, but not the spirit basically). But that's not the direction the discussion went. It was "meets the SNG" vs. "The GNG trumps the SNG". On a good day, that's NC given the numbers. Given that the GNG doesn't trump _this_ SNG (per the long-established SNG itself), the keep side had the better argument. I think there _is_ a solid deletion argument to be had. But it didn't get consensus. Hobit (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: Are we reading the same guideline? The "Applicable Policies and Guidelines" section led me to pretty much the opposite conclusion. In addition, 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.. The "Basic Criteria" section seems to support this as well by prominently linking to WP:BASIC which is basically the GNG. AIRcorn(talk)09:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I had missed that. It also says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." I think that's a pretty clear statement that meeting one or the other is enough. Feels like different parts written by different people with different goals. That does weaken my argument though I don't think crushes it. Hobit (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - After taking a close look at the AfD, the relevant guidelines and discounting Rainbow Unicorn's !vote (I am not inclined to discount the IP as there is no evidence that it is a sockpuppet of any other user - though their argument holds no weight) I have to endorse the close. The basic keep argument was simply that the article met NCRIC. This is simply not enough. NSPORTS (and therefore NCRIC) is subservient to GNG as quoted from WP:NSPORTS itself; In addition, 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. Thus, it must be argued, that the articles failure to meet GNG holds significantly more weight than its success in meeting NCRIC. Which, coincidentally, is exactly what the countering delete argument was saying; that while it might just barely meet NCRIC it comprehensively failed to meet WP:GNG or WP:N. Side-note; Hobit and TonyBallioni, in this case the SNG requires the article to meet GNG. They are not on parallel tracks. Mr rnddude (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mr rnddude From WP:N: 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; (emphasis mine). NSPORTS contradicts the text of WP:N, which explicitly lists it as equal to the GNG. To borrow an old maxim: when the law is unclear, there is no law. The people involved with it couldn't figure out how to sort out the ambiguity. When that's the case, we keep an article, not delete it. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I hadn't noted that, though that's hardly a contradiction. Per your quoted material, the criteria outlined by the subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right (NSPORTS in this case) is that it must meet GNG to receive a standalone article. This goes hand-in-hand with N which also states that meeting either the GNG or SNG is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page (page meaning article). It looks like a mess, but, it's relatively clean to parse out. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and btw, pings like this won't work. You have to either create a new comment or delete the old one, save the page, then repaste it with the fix and a new sig and then resave the page. Mr rnddude (talk) 05:35, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Its a strong tension at the very least, and yes. You raise a very good point: these are simply guidelines and we can choose to exclude something included by them or vice versa. The issue here is that there wasn't a consensus to do either. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This contradiction was part of my confusion all along, I quoted at the time that the entire fact that the two guidelines contradicted each other meant that we could safely ignore both... Bobo.08:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyBallioni, Hobit, and Hut 8.5:. In case you were unaware a RFC was opened earlier this year on the SNG vs GNG debate at the village pump here. The closing statement says amoung other things thatThere is clear consensus that no subject-specific notability guideline, including Notability (sports) is a replacement for or supercedes the General Notability Guideline.). It might just be a case of WP:N needing updating. AIRcorn(talk)09:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was a horribly written close that was beyond the scope of the discussion, and there is currently an RfC at WT:PROF that is about to conclude the exact opposite. There is no backdoor way around changing WP:N. Our guidelines remain in tension here, and likely will remain in tension. Like above, these are all just guidelines anyway, and we can include something that fails WP:N if there is good cause, and delete something that passes it. The issue here is that there was no consensus to do either. TonyBallioni (talk) 09:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I remember participating in that discussion. One person suggested "a single season" or an individual championship in a given sport. How do you even define that? Does someone have to participate in every game in a single season? For English soccer players, that's all 38 games. For baseball players, that's 162 games. That's simply infeasible. I bet only 2 percent of any sportsmen would qualify under this, if that...
The fact that all three levels of consensus were seemingly reached in the debate makes me question whether any consensus was reached... just as I expressed at the time: "Let's take NCRIC for an example. One first-class appearance. Want to make it two? Three? Fifty? Fine. Offer that suggestion as an alternative. State NPOV reasons why. But doing so is more POV than any existing guideline." Bobo.10:23, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is deciding whether some subject has passed the GNG or not. It is impossible to prove absolutely that a subject does not satisfy the GNG, because you can't check every possible source in existence. The most you can say is that you made a reasonable effort to find sources and failed. What constitutes a reasonable effort varies from topic to topic. Here we have reason to think that a simple English language Google search may miss relevant sources, so the fact that this has been done does not mean the subject doesn't pass the GNG. If you read a bit further down the RfC close you'll see that it does discuss this issue and suggests that somebody might want to draw up an intermediate standard for this situation. AFAIK that has not happened so I have no problem with people using the SNG for this. Hut 8.517:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) There is no need to challenge that close since it didn't actually affect WP:N, and if it did it would be reverted instantly as not being within the scope of the RfC, which was on NSPORT, not N. What it told us was that there was dissatisfaction with that specific SNG and that people felt not meeting the GNG was grounds for deletion even if it met the SNG. Sure, I think I even argued that in the RfC. What it did not do was change the overall notability guideline, which includes WP:NPOSSIBLE, which is effectively what the SNGs exist to show. Arguing to delete based on the GNG and to keep based on an SNG are both equally valid arguments under WP:N, which is just a guideline, and WP:NHC tells us If the discussion shows that some people think one policy is controlling, and some another, the closer is expected to close by judging which view has the predominant number of responsible Wikipedians supporting it, not personally select which is the better policy. Since the views here on which notability standard to use were split, there was no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:15, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, both the G4 and the original discussion. The requirement for articles like this (and this one is most probably a BLP) to pass the WP:GNG is well documented above so I won't repeat it, but that is reason enough for endorse. I'll add that as a cricket fan, I'm going to guess that in the development of WP:NCRIC, situations like this were not considered and keeping articles like this may have not been the intended outcome. I'm also reminded of a similar baseball-themed case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smith (baseball). Lankiveil(speak to me)10:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The fact that User:Go Phightins! picks exactly the same logical hole in the two guidelines as we do proves that we, as a Wikiproject, aren't on our own... I'm not saying they're right therefore we're right therefore the argument is wrong, I'm just saying that we're not alone in having found that logical fallacy. Bobo.13:55, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The problem with most of the WP:SNGs is they tend to be written by fans of that topic, and tend to be overly-inclusive. And, the idea that a small number of people in a wikiproject can write a SNG which trumps the WP:GNG is absurd. The AfD close got this exactly right. -- RoySmith(talk)13:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wearing my CU hat for a moment: while as usual CheckUser is not magic pixie dust, the information in the logs concerning Rainbow unicorn suggests that it is quite unlikely that the IP is their sockpuppet (different continents). T. Canens (talk) 18:42, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus There's no requirement that the community is obligated to follow a guideline like an SNG ("Wikipedia has no firm rules"). However, I see no consensus in the AfD that the SNG should be ignored in this case. My take on Spartaz's closing statement at AfD ("... give less weight to arguments for inherant notability than those arguing delete based on wider policy") and his endorse above ("... but is is a long established principle that wider community requirements have precedence.") is that he may have confused the local WikiProject Cricket consensus of WP:CRIN with the wider community guideline of WP:NCRIC (which is a part of WP:NSPORTS). However, the keepers were citing the guideline NCRIC—not CRIN—and it is a deadlock with those saying GNG wasn't met. Also, there was no consensus at AfD that a lack of a birthdate was a reason to delete, so the close citing that aspect appears to be a WP:SUPERVOTE. I considered the endorse votes! above, but it beings to mind that DRV "is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question ... the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate."—Bagumba (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You, uh, might want to check the names of the endorsers against the names of the AfD participants: myself, Reyk, Aircorn, Lankiveil and an T. Canens were not participants in the AfD and thus cannot re-express our opinions. Spartaz as closer is only re-affirming their position that their close is correct. So that leaves one, and only one, endorses who actually participated in the AfD to begin with; Harrias. Also, Spartaz's comment about wider community requirements is a reference to GNG (applicable to all articles) versus NCRIC (applicable only to cricket articles). The rest is really a matter of interpretation of consensus. That is what we're here for after all. Mr rnddude (talk) 11:45, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr rnddude: The re- portion was in parentheses (original wording, not mine), meaning it applies to both those expressing and re-expressing their opinion. At any rate, my feel is that many here in the DRV are bringing in their own arguments and interpretation of guidelines, as opposed to solely assessing the level of consensus of the original participants. No worries, we can disagree.—Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes, fair enough with parentheses so meaning both re-express and express. You might be correct about the interpretation of guidelines, it is just that they are somewhat central to the validity of the close. If GNG supersedes NCRIC (for example) then GNG arguments are weighter than NCRIC ones. If not, then no the close has no validity and would indeed be a supervote. But yes, of course we can disagree on the interpretation of the consensus. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:00, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To my mind, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS only allows closers to supersede participants' consensus regarding the policies (not guidelines) of "verifiability, no original research or synthesis, neutral point of view, copyright, and biographies of living persons". Having a short sparse bio, in itself, is not a violation of any of those policies. It's neither the closer's nor DRV's role to argue how guidelines should be weighted. We are only here to gauge the consensus of how they were interpreted in the AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 12:15, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
(Closing admin) In addition I note that some editors in the AfD were concerned about the way the page was structured, and that citations while they existed are too few and not independent enough to justify an article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:27, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a correctly closed AfD. I suggest that if you want the page to be moved to a draft state then you should provide some examples of citations that you want to add to the article to address the concerns about sourcing. Additionally there was another concern that the article content was largely a massive list of people in minor positions in student organisations, which isn't encyclopedic (WP:NOT#DIR). Hut 8.510:38, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse If you want to run the proposed sources by someone once you have them, feel free to use me. I'm a bit busy, but should be able to respond. Hobit (talk) 23:26, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
