WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION P. ATKINS

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

P. Atkins

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Another cricketer who fails to meet WP:GNG. This RfC has already confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. CricketArchive and Cricinfo statistical profiles, which can be regarded as trivial coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC, are not sufficient to establish notability. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 05:37, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete all The notion that someone who played one match for Singha Sports Club and scored no runs should have an encyclopedia article devoted to them on this basis is just ridiculous. All fail WP:GNG.---- Pontificalibus 07:15, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment - The "notion" of it is not ridiculous, as the cricketer achieved exactly the same in a single-match career as hundreds of others. The fact that their notability is being questioned is saddening but once again, an indication of how this project is changing. Perhaps for the better. I don't personally think so. Picking and choosing on the grounds of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is starting to seem like victimization. Once again it saddens me that the encyclopedia is being hacked down for the sake of selective censorship, but if that's the way this project is going, so be it. If we want an incomplete project, based on the view of our own project members (isn't that just a tad disturbing?) then that's what we'll have. Bobo . 07:27, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment @ Pontificalibus: - if you think the "notion" of a single-appearance first-class player is "ridiculous", what do you think the brightline criteria should be - other than the same as it is at every other competitive team-sports project? Just asking. Once again, someone is saying IDONTLIKEIT without coming up with an alternative solution based on brightline criteria. Bobo . 07:34, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The criteria for every article should be WP:GNG per WP:WHYN.---- Pontificalibus 07:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

GNG and N (to which WHYN redirects) completely contradict each other. N explicitly says "either". Bobo . 07:41, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The entire purpose of subject-specific notability guidelines is to help assess whether a subject satisfies WP:GNG. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) begins "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." If the subject-specific guidelines are offering up subjects that patently fail to satisfy WP:GNG then the guidelines are flawed. WP:WHYN makes it clear why we need significant coverage in reliable sources.---- Pontificalibus 07:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Then please feel free to suggest new subject-specific guidelines and new sources based on your knowledge of the subject. Far too many people are willing to say the guidelines are flawed, none of these people is willing to provide alternative solutions. Exit, pursued by a bear. Bobo . 07:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Sure. With WP:NCRIC I'd delete criteria where most players didn't receive significant coverage in reliable sources. So that would probably mean deleting #2, #3 and #4, and deleting "domestic" from #1. Sure there will be non-international players who satisfy WP:GNG, but they can dealt with on a case-by-case basis like most other subjects.---- Pontificalibus 08:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Neither 2, 3, or 4 impinge on this example. And deleting "domestic" from 1 means getting rid of every non-Test and non-ODI cricketer - regardless of which country they play in. Cool. That'll do. Bobo . 08:07, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You seem to have misread what I wrote. The criteria are guidelines as to which subjects typically meet WP:GNG, so "every" non-international cricketer would not be "got rid of" if they meet WP:GNG. Many non-sport subject-specific guidelines are worded along the lines of "players who have competed in domestic competitive finals at the highest level are often found to satisfy WP:GNG", so suggestive criteria like that can also be used. The main aim is to identify groups which almost invariably meet WP:GNG. The current criteria fail to do that. ---- Pontificalibus 08:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nomination and consensus established at similar recent Afds. Reyk _YO! 09:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete because it can be inferred that if we don't even know their full names, the subjects come nowhere near to meeting the general notability guidelines. In these circumstances, the technicalities of the subject-specific guidelines are pretty much irrelevant. If anyone has any questions of me, please ping me; I can't put these AfDs on my watchlist because Bobo192's incessant badgering clogs it up.-- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:13, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I apologize. I'm only defending the difference between "we know nothing about these cricketers therefore this article offends me", "we do not know this cricketer's name therefore he doesn't pass guidelines", and "this article passes basic notability guidelines"... My questions remain the same every single time, and still nobody answers them. If you have an answer to offer yourself, please go ahead. Bobo . 10:11, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

What are your questions? Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states "standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline" and that sport-specific guidelines "provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". Which part of this are you interpreting differently to everyone else and why? ---- Pontificalibus 10:45, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, we know basically nothing about any of these players. They are all described as "Indian cricketer"s, but I suspect, given some of the surnames and the state of the empire at the time, that some would probably have considered themselves English. All fail WP:GNG, but I have no prejudice against re-creation if new sources come to light. Harrias ^talk 09:47, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete All Fails basic required GNG and verification without knowing these players. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 12:00, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect K. Mendis to Kalutara Physical Culture Centre (where there are a host of other possible redirect candidates btw).

Comment. The page Kalutara Physical Culture Centre has not a single source and the subjects all listed above could not be verified by independent, reliable sources. See no point to redirect at all. CASSIOPEIA^(
talk) 10:31, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

@ CASSIOPEIA: The CricketArchive external link has a list of players who played for the side. If there's a desire to create lists of players then that's, generally, where the information to create the list comes from. Individual players can then be sourced to their respective statistical pages (see, for example, List of Bedfordshire County Cricket Club List A players). It's an odd club though and there's very little that I can find about it as an entity, although it does seem to have also played at first-class level in 2016 as well. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 10:43, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete or redirect others - ideally an appropriate list would exist to redirect these to. At this time I don't think we've much of a hope of being able to put anything in terms of detail on these chaps. Each, other than Mendis, played one match, and in all cases we lack even basic biographical information other than a surname and initial. Beyond wikipedia and scorecards there's nothing that I can find out there with the level of detail we have - so, unless some "magic" "research" turns up something, we've nothing to fill out the biographies with. If reliable sources which add an appropriate level of detail emerge then any articles can be re-created easily enough. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 09:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete all it is time to rid wikipedia of articles that are really just directory entries. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:07, 25 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.

P. Atkins

P. Atkins

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook