WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION CE HOLKAR

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2017 December 27.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 no consensus. Although the points made for delete are strong, to be consistent with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake will close this as no consensus. There are open discussions at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#An issue with one sentence and Wikipedia talk:Notability#Please clarify confusing notability issue for AfD purposes directly related to this discussion. I strongly suggest an RfC on this matter for wider visibility as the outcome will affect a wide range of pages. J04n( talk page) 18:28, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply

CE Holkar

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:

{{subst:
spa|username}}

; suspected canvassed users:

{{subst:
canvassed|username}}

; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry:

{{subst:
csm|username}}

or

{{subst:
csp|username}}

.

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

Fails WP:GNG in my opinion. All articles listed below relies on routine statistical coverage in CricketArchive and have insufficient references (most of them contain only one reference) to support the biography and all are missing basic biographical details, such as first name or year of birth. A similar mass nomination is going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. Sandanayake. No offence to creator of these bios. Saqib ( talk) 07:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment - is it just me or am I starting to feel victimized for absolutely no reason? I find it absolutely disgusting that people are trying to destroy the cricket Wikiproject for some silly rule they've plucked out of the air. Simply because cricketers are not from an English speaking country they are not acceptable for Wikipedia. This goes against everything WP stands for and is a disgusting blot on our project. Bobo . 09:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Speedy keep - all first-class cricketers. Why is our project being destroyed? If there had been a rule all along that only first-class players from English-speaking countries were allowed, I would have stuck to this all along. As for "only contain one reference", anyone with half a brain knows from where to add a second. "Does not contain year of birth" is not a deletion criterion. Bobo . 09:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby
miss
fortune} 09:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete all- These have all the same problems as the other non-notable cricket players' articles. Sourced to only raw statistical entries inflated into prose, sourcing so minimal it's not even possible to determine such basic biographical information as a first name or DOB. Many don't even have a first initial. Many of these people are likely to still be alive, so this kind of thing is irresponsible from a BLP standpoint- especially as the single source has been shown to be vague about unambiguously identifying these obscure cricketers. These articles fail WP:V and, since the effective deprecation of WP:CRIN, they also fail our notability requirements. If, later, some suitable sourcing should arise for some of these players the articles can be recreated. Since making them in the first place was a zero-effort undertaking, I don't suppose that will be too onerous. Reyk _YO! 10:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

When you have been a member of this site for 13 years attempting to improve it to better the aims of the encyclopedia only to find your efforts being destroyed, then, with all due respect, you can call this a "zero-effort undertaking". Surely you can see how demoralizing this is for me. Bobo . 10:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Well for 13 years you and your colleges have ignored the purposes of the encyclopedia and the meaning of the general notability guidelines. Articles need to be built on 3rd-party reliable source coverage. If the cricket guidelines were reasonable, you could produce such coverage on every person who fit its insanely overly broad limits. You have not even tried to do so, just hand waved and said we should accept some rule that was drawn up in total disregard of where such coverage was likely to occur. Also, since English is one of the official languages of India, claiming this is some sort of attack on cricketers from "non-English-speaking countries" is unjustifiable. This is an attempt to make all Wikipedia articles follow the rules of verifiability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:16, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby
miss
fortune} 10:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby
miss
fortune} 10:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Baby
miss
fortune} 10:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete ONLY those which are BLP and fail WP:Verify. The remainder should be retained, certainly for now, so that notability can be assessed in due course. Verification as a fundamental policy must take precedence over a guideline. User:Reyk, you mention no initials for some players but names like Burhan-ud-din, Dharmasdrasinhji and Krishnamurthi are complete. They do not have first names or initials. If you look at famous players like Ranjitsinhji and Duleepsinhji you will understand. Burhan-ud-din should properly be spelt with hyphens as I have shown and Pakistan had a good batsman called Alim-ud-din in the early days. Please don't get hung up on sub-continental names. What matters is verification and, from that, notability. Waj (talk) 14:46, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
- I'm aware that some people have only one name. Others state "full name and initials unknown" suggesting, as I said, that a lot of these articles don't even allow for the person's full name to be determined. What is the objection to that, exactly? Reyk _YO! 14:57, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

You said above that "Many don't even have a first initial" as if that is an issue. The three I highlighted will not have other names so they are not missing initials. That is not the case with a name like Sen, though, and his first name(s) is/are certainly missing.

In fact, the complaints about inaccuracy on CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo are justified in regard to Alim-ud-Din. They have rendered his name incorrectly (no hyphens) although Wisden has done it correctly. It must be said that Wisden is definitely the more respected source. Perhaps it is right to get hung up on the names sometimes? Oh, dear. Waj (talk) 15:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete all If people have not even bothered to record the full name of an individual, and if the coverage is only in statistical databases, there is a total and complete faiure of the general notability guidelines. The fact that these may pass the current interpretation of the notability guidelines for cricket players shows that these guidelines are flawed, fail in the purposes intended for area specific guidelines, and need to be heavily revised or entirely scapped. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete all These articles do not meet the high bar of GNG. People defending these articles need to understand that this is Wikipedia, not "Crickipedia", and passing the general notability guideline takes precedence over passing cricket notability guideline. Dee 03 16:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment We assume that everyone born in the last 110-years is alive, unless positive proof of death is provided. Thus Sen (Assam cricketer), who played in a single game in the early 1950s, clearly falls under BLP rules, which are not at all met by one listing in a statistical database. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

John Pack Lambert, according to WP:BDP in the biography of living persons policy, it is 115 years presumed alive unless death verified, so anyone born since the end of 1902. Waj (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete all which are sourced only to CricketArchive, which may not even be a reliable source and certainly doesn't satisfy WP:BLP. Procedural keep of all others, as they warrant their own discussions if they have more sourcing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete - some of these may very well have been top class cricketers in their day, but the only source in all the article requires a subscription and the names are so vague that researching these individuals is difficult. Unless any citation that proves notability comes up, I'm afraid these articles fail WP:GNG by a wide margin. Inter&anthro ( talk) 18:48, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply
- But do satisfy WP:NCRIC. The issue here is not notability but verifiability. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 19:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Right at the end of NCRIC it says:

"Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding and these must be quoted if difficulty arises in an AfD discussion."

That used, once upon a time, to be a lot more prominent in the notability criteria. These days no one ever seems to get that far. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Blue Square Thing: Actually, you quoted WP:CRIN, which is neither a guideline nor a policy. It is simply some supplemental material developed by a WikiProject which has no actual standing. WP:NCRIC is a guideline, which is quite different. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:00, 17 December 2017 (UTC) reply

~~Delete~~ Redirect all There are no biographical references about any of these people; they are merely sourced to a name appearing on a scorecard. They don't pass the Pokémon test. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:41, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply
- Lugnuts' redirect proposal is a fine alternative to deletion, and I see no reason to oppose it. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment This AfD should remain open for 14 days as I and other WP:CRIC members need time to find the sources. Will vote in the end. But clearly AfD is not place to scrap WP:CRIN (i.e. they should start RfC). Störm (talk) 10:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Störm: I think most of the nominated bios have presence in ESPN database, but still that will count as statistical coverage. -- Saqib ( talk) 10:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, that is true. I'm busy till Friday so will see this later whether it is worth to keep them or should be merged into list e.g. List of Indian cricketers. Störm (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect the following into their main lists. Most of the Indian cricket teams have their own standalone articles for players. In an effort to preserve the article history, and the possiblity of future expansion, these can go to their parent article:

P. Kadam - List of Gujarat cricketers

P. Shadwell - List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers

VG Jadhav - List of Maharashtra cricketers

S. K. Desai - List of Gujarat cricketers

TN Deo - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

S. Kothane - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

SN Kunzru - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

Pahlajani - List of Assam cricketers

Majethia (Saurashtra cricketer) - List of Saurashtra cricketers

SK Bahry - List of Uttar Pradesh cricketers

SR Kale - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

N. Singh (cricketer) - List of Assam cricketers

A. Sarma - List of Assam cricketers

P. Rashid - List of Assam cricketers

S. Rehman - List of Assam cricketers

R. Puri - List of Assam cricketers

L. Doran - List of Assam cricketers

M. Asthana - List of Southern Punjab cricketers

NPR Vittal - List of Andhra cricketers

HA Khan - List of Gujarat cricketers

GN Kunjru - List of Assam cricketers

Dharmasdrasinhji - List of Saurashtra cricketers

R. Tripathi - List of Assam cricketers

K. Bhatnagar - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

V. J. Barai - List of Saurashtra cricketers

S. Dotiwala - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

VR Ghetge - List of Madhya Pradesh cricketers

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I think Lugnuts' above proposal is reasonable. Inter&anthro ( talk) 17:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree. As an example, I have made an addition to Kunzru's entry in List_of_Madhya_Pradesh_cricketers#K to show what can be done with a single-appearance player. Is that okay? Waj (talk) 17:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete all: Strange though it may seem to some, articles on cricket players aren't exempt from the GNG or WP:BLP, and have to meet those standards all the same. I'm singularly unimpressed by the "OMG you vandals are destroying the cricket project!!!!" hyperbole. The way to save these articles isn't in screeching "How dare you?" but in providing adequate sourcing. One would think that thirteen years is quite enough time to allow for doing so. Nha Trang ^Allons! 22:45, 18 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep per Wikipedia:Notability,

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 What Wikipedia is not policy.

Whether or not these articles meet GNG is irrelevant, as they meet the SSG, as specified by our overarching notability guideline. Harrias ^talk 12:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hmm, there was a debate surrounding this issue and consensus was clear that GNG overrules any SSG, not the other way around. Reyk _YO! 14:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I'm just quoting Wikipedia:Notability, which specifically says either is a presumption of notability. Harrias ^talk 15:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Name formats. I was puzzled by the variety of naming formats in the list and found MOS:INITIALS which says "an initial is followed by a full point (period) and a space (e.g., J. R. R. Tolkien)". It is evident, then, that there is an additional problem and that many of these, like VR Ghetge, will need to be renamed if kept to V. R. Ghetge, etc. So, too, must Burhanuddin and Ziauddin to Burhan-ud-Din and Zia-ud-Din as they are formatted incorrectly and should be hyphenated. I like the initials standard. It should be easy to follow and it is disappointing that people cannot be bothered to comply with a standard. Regards, Waj (talk) 14:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Strong appeal for speedy keep yet again - There are several articles in English Wikipedia that doesn't cite any sources but these articles have References from Cricinfo, CricketArchive, CricHQ, PCB etc. One of the goals of WikiProject Cricket is to write all the cricket related biographies who have played in First-class cricket, List A cricket and T20 cricket. Just assume, a footballer playing for a club team is considered to be notable under WikiProject Football. I think just for the sake of a missing given name it could have been nominated for an AfD. Cricinfo is a reliable database similar to Soccerway, which is a football database used as a primary source in creating football biographies. Like Soccerway, people should think websites like Cricinfo and CricketArchive are also reliable cricket databases when referring or extracting information. Abishe ( talk) 18:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete There is substantial Keep I like it and other articles argument. And none is valid reason for keeping article. The fact that some articles are not sourced is never, and will never be reason to keep another bare minimum permanent stub. There is no significant coverage of these players and therefore no biography should exist for them– Ammarpad ( talk) 18:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Development. New initiatives are taking place at WP:N and WP:NSPORTS. I believe a hold should be placed on these discussions where notability is the issue but not where WP:V is in question. Regards, Waj (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply
- If a formal RFC is proposed (either to change WP:NCRIC/ WP:CRIN, or to change the relation between the WP:GNG and sports-specific SNGs), I agree this should be a procedural close with no action (i.e. keep). The discussion so far isn't enough for me to change from my opinion that stand-alone articles aren't reasonable here. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:49, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Apologies if I have misunderstood but I thought the issue raised at Nsports talk was an RFC. Okay. Regards, Waj (talk) 11:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete. Lack of GNG is the number one priority for deletion. Sportsfan 1234 ( talk) 22:25, 19 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Lugnuts. For one thing, the lack of scrutiny caused by mass nomination is bad process. For another, it will help the comprehensive coverage an encyclopedia demands. And the clincher is that it's much easier for someone with additional sources to go back in the history and expand them if they haven't been deleted. It's plain that they're all notable, just not fulfilling our verifiability criteria. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment - whatever is to be done to this, what we need to be doing first and foremost is making complete lists of first-class players by team. Not willy-nilly here and there based on articles which people have randomly decided they don't like. Bobo . 17:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete All- I think its very hard to make a claim of notability when we don't even know the person's full name.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply
That's not an argument based on policy. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 18:35, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

It's not a rule per se, but its common sense. First, not knowing the full names makes WP:V a problem, but it also makes a statement that whatever few sources do exist did not consider the person important enough to remember his full name.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 18:43, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Speedy keep This is a mess, you can't just nominate 20 articles in one AfD. The guidelines of WP:NCRIC exist for a reason, and these articles all meet the notability guidelines. If you don't like the guidelines, then the correct course of action is to start an RfC about it, not start a mass AfD. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 19:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Comment. I have added inline citations and other references for some of these articles and will do others in coming days. User:Rusf10 reverted the edit to the CE Holkar article that included extra information; I have now reinstated it. This mass AfD is, as User:Joseph2302 says, a mess as the cricketers involved come from at least three countries, some have made several first-class appearances (not just single-appearance people) and in at least one case (M. Jayasekera) a full name and birthdate/birthplace are now known. Johnlp ( talk) 19:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The reason it was reverted is because of the sentence "His full details are not yet known". How commentary like this belongs in the article is beyond me.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 19:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Well, take that sentence out if it offends. But you don't need to undo the other improvements. Johnlp ( talk) 20:12, 20 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Procedural Keep As per the nomination, "most [articles nominationed] contain one reference". So some have more than one source. This is not a set of articles with common properties. The attempt to nominate them all at once is done for the purpose of presenting an agenda. Editors have noticed that the WP:ATD was not considered. Unscintillating ( talk) 03:25, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

User:feminist has below identified the related Wikilink WP:TRAINWRECK. Unscintillating ( talk) 18:08, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment - to claim there was any form of "consensus" in the conversation here is downright deceptive and to be honest, the equivalent of pushing an agenda. This was a horrid, messy close and should not have been made this way. I still believe there was no form of consensus here and would like someone to convince me there is any present. If, as is stated above, we are currently in a conversation based on verifiability and not notability, I believe this conversation needs to take place elsewhere before coming to AfD. Bobo . 04:15, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete A single statistical database reference is insufficient for the biography of a living person. Countless efforts to reconcile GNG with NCRIC have failed with stubborn resistance to any reasonable compromise. Rhadow ( talk) 13:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I support Störm's recommendation below. Rhadow ( talk) 14:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment These players are better suited for a list article. Further, the WP:NCRIC mentions the player should have appeared in 'highest international or domestic level', whereas many of these players have played in a 'first class match', without mentioning the name of the domestic league. MT Train^Discuss 14:42, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete all that rely only on statistics. The mere existence of a statistic doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. We need to be able to say more convert that statistic into prose ("he played in .. and scored ..."). -- regentspark ( comment) 15:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

This !vote hasn't identified a violation of WP:Deletion policy if a violation of WP:DEL8 is assumed, hasn't identified a violation of WP:N if a violation of GNG is assumed, and hasn't provided evidence of absence for GNG violations. Unscintillating ( talk) 17:04, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Huh? The mere existence of a statistic doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. Do you want me to substitute GNG with notability? I'm afraid I don't understand your comment. -- regentspark ( comment) 17:08, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply

The statement, "The mere existence of a statistic doesn't satisfy X" is a conclusion to be drawn when X = GNG, but not when X = "WP:N" or X = "Wikipedia notability". Nor is the statement evidence of an absence of GNG sources. Posters are advised in the Group Notice when posting here to consider alternatives to deletion, and if alternatives were suggested and the poster wants to !vote delete, to "elaborate why". Unscintillating ( talk) 02:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

I'll try to say this more explicitly though that's really not necessary because it is implicit in my statement that other sources don't exist or have not been found. A source that merely contains a statistic relating to an individual does not indicate whether that individual was notable or not. After a diligent, if google, search, no other sources could be found on the individual in question. This implies that the individual in question is likely not notable enough for an article on that individual to be included on Wikipedia. Therefore, since the individual has not received significant coverage in reliable sources, the article fails WP:GNG. -- regentspark ( comment) 16:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete - Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; what we have here is not a bundle of articles but rather a bundle of interpreted statistics. BLPs require actual sources and needs to satisfy GNG. A sports guideline does not supercede these blatant violations and, as I have said before, if anyone can find an in-depth secondary source that no one else could, I will happily change my !vote. TheGracefulSlick ( talk) 22:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Keep all, at least until discussions at WT:NSPORTS and WT:CRIC have concluded. Like it or not, they pass WP:NCRIC and they have, or can have by easy amendment, inline references. Discussion about whether WP:NCRIC is fit for purpose should take place elsewhere and the implications for the whole range of team sports such as soccer, baseball and American football should also be taken into consideration: there are articles that reference statistical databases covering many sports, and to single out cricket articles is potentially unjust, but also potentially of concern to a much wider group of editors who contribute to other parts of WP. In addition, this is a very mixed bag of articles touching on a varied set of WP communities, and a blanket nomination is just the wrong way to do anything with them: discussion here has been entirely about these articles as if they were "owned" by the cricket project, when there are other WP projects (such as WP:Sri Lanka, WP:Pakistan and WP:India) for whom some of the articles are relevant, and some not at all. Bundling disparate articles together in this way does not help these projects and leaves the English language WP open to possible charges of systemic bias. Johnlp ( talk) 00:20, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Delete all -- these are not BIO articles. Way insufficient sources for stand-alone entries. Samples:

"Majethia (full name and details unknown)... "
"MSM Shiyam (full name and birthdate unknown)... " Etc.

Delete for lack of significant coverage that discusses each subject directly and in detail. Wikipedia does not aim to create an exhaustive directory of all athletes who played in a given game. In the case here, WP:SIGCOV is sorely lacking, to the point that the full names of the subjects are not known. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:27, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Redirect All per User:Lugnuts. If WP:NCRIC allows articles on potentially living people to exist without anything in the way of substantial sources to support them, then it is a guideline that needs revising. There has been a widespread consensus that the WP:GNG trumps any narrow SNG in cases like these. A redirect is a good compromise as some of them may be valid search terms. Lankiveil ^{(
speak to me)} 05:40, 22 December 2017 (UTC). reply
Redirect Sri Lankan cricketers to List of Sri Lankan cricketers, Indian cricketers to List of Indian cricketers. I'm trying to build-up on Lugnuts idea that when we fail to find any significant coverage then we should redirect to the list until it becomes ready for stand-alone article. But we really lack by-team lists and situation is no one is ready to write all those missing lists for hundreds of team and no one will in near future. So, result will be that we will continue to loose articles. I have started a dynamic list List of Sri Lankan cricketers with general name which will provide overall navigation for Sri Lankan cricketers and also we can keep links blue for by team list. There were solutions before e.g. List of lesser known Sri Lankan cricketers, Panadura Sports Club single-appearance players but they eventually got deleted. I'm suggesting this kind of dynamic list as a compromise, because otherwise these bundles will continue to come. It is easy for us to create these lists for 12 test playing nations and isn't violating WP rules. This list need major improvements which anyone can do or suggest. Störm (talk) 07:57, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

@ Lankiveil: @ TheGracefulSlick: @ Rhadow: @ Dweller: @ Reyk: @ Dee03: @ Saqib: What they say about the suggestion. Störm (talk) 08:03, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Hi, yes, was one of the solutions I've recommended before. See, for instance, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/I._Kudigame and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive294#WP:CRIN_wars, and provided a suggestion of how such a thing might look at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_lesser-known_Sri_Lankan_cricketers. For this I was abused and heckled by the usual suspects. And from outside the cricket wikiproject the general suggestion was that less is more, so I kind of stepped back from that idea. Reyk _YO! 09:39, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Additional thought opposing redirect Don't redirect any. Redirect is superficially deletion with additional ability to easily revert them to article. Once Article is deemed to be redirected that means it is not notable per se, and what is the essence of redirecting non notable person to list article where no information about him exist?. If anybody feels redirect is warranted they can easily be created with one revision after this AfD. But keeping these stub of biographies will not do any anything except to serve as behind route to overturn AfD decision by turning them to articles with another additional 1 or 2 lingering citation from stats websites. Both those who !voted delete and redirect are of the conclusion these articles didn't meet our general inclusion criteria and there's consensus for this. – Ammarpad ( talk) 08:24, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

If you think these bundling can solve the problem then keep it up. After all they pass our guidline WP:NCRIC. Störm (talk) 09:22, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

But guideline is not substitute to common sense. They passed your guideline based on generic statistics. A played for B in X year. That's all. And that's why they failed to pass WP:GNG and will forever remain permanent stubs. They can't be improved to meaningful biographies because they already failed the more meaningful criteria. – Ammarpad ( talk) 09:32, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

That's why I said keep them in the form of table list because we don't have much to say about them. Störm (talk) 10:45, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Störm's idea is perfect and we can merge into list articles such as List of Sri Lankan cricketers, List of Indian cricketers. More importantly, these 2 list articles should be filled as soon as possible as there are more possibilities of articles getting deleted due to these naming errors, verifiability, missing given names. Abishe ( talk) 10:26, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

When list becomes large in size then we can split the list into like List of Sri Lankan cricketers:A much like List of United Kingdom MPs: A which they use for overall navigation. Störm (talk) 10:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply

Comment I am working in my sandbox on the outlines for a proposal on this subject. Feedback (at that location or its talk page) is appreciated. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect per Lugnuts. Others should be discussed separately per WP:TRAINWRECK. feminist ( talk) 03:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete all -- Wikipedia is not a place to house a collective list of athletes, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, with vague names where statistical/directory source does not satisfy WP:GNG and hard to WP:V, failing to meet the core of criteria for any stand alone article to be created and stay in Wikipedia website unless they are accompanied with other references. If it is allowed to be kept, then millions of athletes in different disciplines with single statistical/directory source would flood Wikipedia and strip away/muddles two of the main Wikipedia policies/guidelines (GNG) and verifiability. CASSIOPEIA ( talk) 14:20, 25 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete all per User:CASSIOPEIA -- Aftabuzzaman ( talk) 01:18, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Redirect all per Dweller. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 08:04, 26 December 2017 (UTC) reply
Delete and redirect all. The lack of sources giving any details causes GNG to be failed by a wide margin. Keeping the history is worthless because the contents are (a) prose versions of the statistics being cited ( WP:NOTSTATS), and (b) the sources are predominantly subscription-only websites, making the content unverifiable for most readers. Sandstein 09:59, 26 December 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.

CE Holkar

CE Holkar

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook