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. Clear consensus to delete. I would encourage
User:Bobo192 to tone it down a bit with the accusations of lying.Making mistakes is human and AGF is expected from all editors, especially sysops.
Randykitty (
talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment he does appear in the database:
here, but it reveals no further information, and remains a bare statistical profile.
Harriastalk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
There you go, Dee. Now not only are we trying to censor information, but we are lying in the process of doing so. The sad state of Wikipedia.
Bobo. 10:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Come on
Bobo192, you're better than that. I'm confident that
Dee03 searched in good faith, but didn't think to split the name. I only found it by trawling through manually.
Harriastalk 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Please tell me you can at least understand my frustration. I've been working my tuchis off for 15 years only for people to come along and say my work is unacceptable. This is why I'm upset.
Bobo. 10:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Don't accuse me of lying. I input the exact name provided by you in the article and got zero results on the Saurashtra website. I was searching that site only hoping to find this person's full name as I had just found
another Saurashtra cricketer's first name there. Now even if this cricketer's name is found (in a different form) on some other statistical website, it does not change the fact that he does not meet GNG.
Dee03 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although he meets
WP:CRIN, that is only a rule of thumb to suggest whether a player will meet
WP:N. It is clear that based on the sources we have, and those that can be found from a Google search, that there is only routine coverage of this player, forming a bare statistical listing. Lacking significant coverage, this subject does not meet the
WP:GNG.
Harriastalk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
He does meet N. This is the whole point. N states "or".
Bobo. 10:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, it does. However, while some SSGs such as
WP:PROF state that they are independent and "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline",
WP:NSPORT and by extension
WP:CRIN are not an alternative, as confirmed by community consensus in
this discussion.
Harriastalk 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Then you are lying too. Well done. Lying has got this whole project and this whole debate where it is. What a sad state of affairs.
Bobo. 10:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
"CRIN is just a rule of thumb which suggests whether a player will meet N". CRIN is just as much a "guideline" as N. As long as N states "or", the two guidelines are of equal footing.
Bobo. 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Not in the slightest no, your understanding is flawed.
Harriastalk 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I know that. I was just pointing out the irony that both were of equal footing and yet one is given more credence than the other even though N clearly states or.
Bobo. 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time.
Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have a universe to attend to. I may be back. I may not...
Bobo. 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- another virtually empty article about an obscure cricketer, full name unknown, based on pure stats databases containing not a single word of prose. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article. A merge might be possible if there is a good target article. Calling people liars merely for disagreeing isn't acceptable behaviour.
ReykYO! 12:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
A claim was made. It was immediately proven to be false. How much more information do you want in the article? Any further information would be superfluous and unnecessary.
Bobo. 14:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. It consists of brief notes transcribed from a statistical source and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion to a readable narrative.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable criketeer who does not meet the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Saurashtra cricketers - this seems better than deleting and the incomplete list can be worked on at some point I'm sure. The lack of biographical information and single known match suggest very strongly that suitable sources for a standalone article are unlikely to be provided in the foreseeable future. If they are then we can create the article easily enough.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 12:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:24, 14 August 2019 (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.
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. Clear consensus to delete. I would encourage
User:Bobo192 to tone it down a bit with the accusations of lying.Making mistakes is human and AGF is expected from all editors, especially sysops.
Randykitty (
talk) 14:48, 15 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment he does appear in the database:
here, but it reveals no further information, and remains a bare statistical profile.
Harriastalk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
There you go, Dee. Now not only are we trying to censor information, but we are lying in the process of doing so. The sad state of Wikipedia.
Bobo. 10:15, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Come on
Bobo192, you're better than that. I'm confident that
Dee03 searched in good faith, but didn't think to split the name. I only found it by trawling through manually.
Harriastalk 10:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Please tell me you can at least understand my frustration. I've been working my tuchis off for 15 years only for people to come along and say my work is unacceptable. This is why I'm upset.
Bobo. 10:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Don't accuse me of lying. I input the exact name provided by you in the article and got zero results on the Saurashtra website. I was searching that site only hoping to find this person's full name as I had just found
another Saurashtra cricketer's first name there. Now even if this cricketer's name is found (in a different form) on some other statistical website, it does not change the fact that he does not meet GNG.
Dee03 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Although he meets
WP:CRIN, that is only a rule of thumb to suggest whether a player will meet
WP:N. It is clear that based on the sources we have, and those that can be found from a Google search, that there is only routine coverage of this player, forming a bare statistical listing. Lacking significant coverage, this subject does not meet the
WP:GNG.
Harriastalk 08:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
He does meet N. This is the whole point. N states "or".
Bobo. 10:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Yes, it does. However, while some SSGs such as
WP:PROF state that they are independent and "explicitly listed as an alternative to the general notability guideline",
WP:NSPORT and by extension
WP:CRIN are not an alternative, as confirmed by community consensus in
this discussion.
Harriastalk 10:30, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Then you are lying too. Well done. Lying has got this whole project and this whole debate where it is. What a sad state of affairs.
Bobo. 10:32, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
"CRIN is just a rule of thumb which suggests whether a player will meet N". CRIN is just as much a "guideline" as N. As long as N states "or", the two guidelines are of equal footing.
Bobo. 10:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Not in the slightest no, your understanding is flawed.
Harriastalk 10:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
I know that. I was just pointing out the irony that both were of equal footing and yet one is given more credence than the other even though N clearly states or.
Bobo. 10:44, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Every Ranji Trophy cricketer I've created is on an old version of my user page. Just delete them all. This is beyond a joke now. The bored deletionists who wish to censor information because they feel it is unnecessary have won. It was only a matter of time.
Bobo. 09:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - I have a universe to attend to. I may be back. I may not...
Bobo. 10:57, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete- another virtually empty article about an obscure cricketer, full name unknown, based on pure stats databases containing not a single word of prose. Consensus is that this bare-bones sourcing is insufficient for a stand-alone article. A merge might be possible if there is a good target article. Calling people liars merely for disagreeing isn't acceptable behaviour.
ReykYO! 12:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
A claim was made. It was immediately proven to be false. How much more information do you want in the article? Any further information would be superfluous and unnecessary.
Bobo. 14:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. Lacks significant coverage and so it fails the GNG which overrides sport-specific criteria. It consists of brief notes transcribed from a statistical source and there appears to be no potential for any worthwhile expansion to a readable narrative.
No Great Shaker (
talk) 13:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete a non-notable criketeer who does not meet the general notability guidelines.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Redirect to
List of Saurashtra cricketers - this seems better than deleting and the incomplete list can be worked on at some point I'm sure. The lack of biographical information and single known match suggest very strongly that suitable sources for a standalone article are unlikely to be provided in the foreseeable future. If they are then we can create the article easily enough.
Blue Square Thing (
talk) 12:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete I think consensus is clear that the various persons with (full name and details unknown) and one first-class appearance are not inherently notable, regardless of what CRIN may say.
power~enwiki (
π,
ν) 20:24, 14 August 2019 (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.