Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Desai

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 moved to Draft:J. Desai. There is a slim consensus in favor of this article not existing as a separate article, whether it is deleted outright or merged into something else. If sources can be found raising this article to meet the applicable notability criteria, it can be proposed for restoration to mainspace. Alternately, if the proposed list of Gujarat cricketers is created, it can be merged there. Otherwise, it will be deleted as abandoned. bd2412 T 19:14, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

J. Desai

(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. I could not find a listing in ESPNcricinfo. One appearance fails WP:BLP1E. For a person whose first name is unknown, WP:NODEADLINE is being stretched; it appears NEVER. Rhadow (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:CRIC and I couldn't find anything for WP:GNG. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:27, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee 03 15:22, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails to meet the GNG. The CricInfo profile (here on the same chap adds nothing new and there appears to be no notability beyond having part of his name on one scorecard from the early 70s. I feel it extremely unlikely that suitable sources will be found to show notability at the GNG level. As always I have no prejudice against re-creating if such sources can be found. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- If one or two scorecards is all we have for a one-appearance player, should I just make a list of the many and do it in one fell swoop? Rhadow (talk) 20:14, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only if we can be sure that there are no sources which show that the GNG is met. With modern players that's quite likely. With some historical players it's clear that it could be or is - for example, Francis Marsham is clearly notable and so obviously meets the GNG. I'm not sure what the longer term approach should be - I'd want to be certain that really good source searches had been done on any group submission. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into a list of Gujarat cricketers. I'd back the creation of lists covering players for whom only statistical info is available. Reyk _YO! 10:22, 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} 10:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- "Only if we can be sure that there are no sources which show that the GNG is met." This is a high bar. It argues implicitly that WP:NODEADLINE supersedes WP:V and WP:GNG. In similar cases, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, for example, the results was no consensus. In Articles for deletion/J. Bandujeewa and Articles for deletion/S. Indika the result was deletion. It was a different case for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rohan Rangarajan (2nd nomination); that article had references. Rhadow (talk) 12:37, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Here is the proposal we developed for another country: List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers‎ and Talk:List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers‎ -- Waddaya think? Rhadow (talk) 18:32, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As I argue on a different nomination (A. Amaranath), the proposal immediately above is a nonsense: "lesser-known" is completely undefined and probably undefinable. The relevant SNG (WP:NCRIC) has been devised by people who know cricket to set a standard from which it is reasonable to presume notability and coverage. This player meets that standard. The fact that coverage is difficult to find doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Johnlp (talk) 22:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment --Johnlp -- I seek from you and others a suggest a workable solution, not simply criticism and speculation about my intent. I put my best idea on the table. I am prepared to listen to yours. When these articles were created, there had been twenty years to write about the player on the pitch. It has been another ten years and no one has even discovered what the player's first name is. WP:DEADLINE is not an excuse for never. I guess it's easier to be critical than creative. Rhadow (talk) 23:52, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To give more time for potential sources, which the keep side asserts exist to come out.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 02:04, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Create a category – perhaps "Sri Lankan (or Indian or wherever) cricketers with incomplete personal details". Bundle all the names into it, then fire off a note to the Sri Lankan or Indian editors on English WP and the cricket editors on the Gujarati or Sinhalese or Tamil WP directly asking for their assistance. These articles aren't up for deletion because of a lack of notability: the SNG which in this instance has been in place for 10+ years confers a presumption of notability. They're up for deletion because of lack of information/completeness. An encyclopedia is about comprehensive coverage, not about complete knowledge, and will always be a work-in-progress. That's why we work on it. Johnlp (talk) 08:55, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is something seriously wrong here. People are all too busy crying about how much they hate WP:CRIN, but are entirely unwilling to suggest new, universally-definable inclusion criteria. Until people are able to do that, can I politely suggest that they find somewhere else to whine about the fact that they think cricket biography inclusion criteria is too inclusive when it is the same as every single other competitive team sport on Wikipedia?

The fact that we have proven that the two main general inclusion criteria guidelines here are completely contradictory nonsense is completely by the by. Choose a rule, stick to it, otherwise please don't complain about the rules we've been keeping to for the best part of the last 15 years. Bobo . 14:47, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - in almost every single case so far the question has been more to do with references (particularly WP:ONESOURCE) than it has been to do with any kind of inclusion criteria. The only constructive thing I've learnt from all of these shenanigans is that people take WP:ONESOURCE a lot more seriously than previously. Bobo . 14:51, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question - if articles like this, for which it is insultingly obvious that they meet WP:CRIN, keep getting deleted willy-nilly simply because people don't like them being on the encyclopedia, then what is the incentive for any single person to continue to make articles which meet WP:CRIN when they know they're probably just going to be deleted on the basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT? We, as WP:CRIC members, are trying to build on cricket coverage. Those who wish to delete are, in a grotesquely selective fashion, and with no sense of logic, attempting to destroy it. Let's choose a place for people to discuss whether the bright-line inclusion criteria are satisfactory for purpose, or drop this entire masquerade, which is an insult to over a decade's worth of hard work on people who are, suspiciously, only just discovering these articles after eight years of their presence on WP. Where were these people eight years ago? Bobo . 15:10, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Still doesn't meet the general notability guideline. BLPs can't be left in such a poor state and at this point no appropriate sources can be found.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:15, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't construe this as badgering but but if "article is in a poor state" is to be considered as a genuine criterion for deletion then all we need to do is pretty up the article a bit. An "appropriate source" is already added. If you would rather this link be in a section named "sources" rather than "external links" please say so - or do it yourself. On another point which I will admit makes me smile, it's strange how articles such as this and the others recently sent for deletion have had no adaptions to the prose portion of the article since I created them eight years ago... as I've said before, where were the WP:IDONTLIKEIT crew hiding eight years ago? Bobo . 15:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why does it matter if they showed up eight years later? What is the point of that remark? I hate to ask but are you sure you should be involved in these discussions Bobo192? With comments like "no sense of logic" and "IDONTLIKEIT crew", you appear to be unwilling to participate with the civility expected of any user, but especially an admin.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:54, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My frustration is, why are people randomly showing up after eight years, in a suspiciously steady stream, when it's insultingly obvious that the subject of the article meets WP:CRIN? Where have they been for the last eight years? If this had been a problem which needed knocking on the head eight years ago, I wouldn't have created hundreds of articles on individuals with a single first-class appearance... Bobo . 15:59, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Bobo192 I can resolve that rather easily. Look at all the editors' tenures and tell me how many of them have an account that is at least eight years old. If you are suspicious of these editors and have actual evidence to support it, I suggest you take it to the appropriate forum or assume good faith for editors who weren't even here eight years ago to fix the problems they see now.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:22, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it is just a frustration that I have been here for 13 years and am suddenly being told "we run things differently around here" when the articles which are currently being sent for deletion clearly meet WP:CRIN, a guideline which those who have cared about the project for that long have defended to within an inch of our frustrations. We at WP:CRIC are being seen as the "black sheep" when we have been defending these rules for all this time - even though every other team sport runs to the same basic guidelines - and as a member of the project it makes me sad that it has come to this - where people are disagreeing with the guideline and refusing to put forward an alternative solution. Bobo . 16:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of lesser-known Sri Lankan cricketers is part of the way towards a solution but if we have such an article we need bright-line criteria - and the only NPOV bright-line criterion is grouping by team. Bobo . 16:36, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as no signs of meeting WP:GNG. We are not database site where we should have article on every single cricketer. Greenbörg (talk) 15:40, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unacceptable as a BLP, due to lack of high quality sources, contravening WP:V. Lack of independent in-depth coverage demonstrates the topic fails GNG and NSPORTS - "Applicable policies and guidelines" and "Basic criteria". Essential biographical material has not been added within an eight year time frame. Therefore, Wikipedia is not a directory or a website for indiscriminate collections of information. Also, Wikipedia "does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere." ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:24, 13 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.