Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Indika

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) 18:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

S. Indika

S. Indika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

S. Indika serves as a test case for Wikipedia's inherent notability policy. At each stage of analysis, Indika qualifies, if barely. At the end of the day, one is hard pressed to argue Indika is a notable figure, deserving of an article in an encyclopedia.

Indika played cricket. His team is Galle Cricket Club, whose status as a first-class cricket club is not established or referenced in its article. The infobox on the Galle page (without citation) tells us that the club has never won a tournament.

Indika played a single match in '88-89. We don't know Indika's first name, since 2008. The data is available from a single source, CricketArchive. It is unclear whether CricketArchive is a primary or secondary source. It does not disclose on any publicly accessible portion of the site from whence its data derives. That makes it a primary source.

Indika apparently qualifies for a WP article under WP:NCRIC. The article has been generally untended. For the last six months it has included an apparent bit of vandalism, which none of the .33 viewers per day has bothered to fix.

Under WP general standards for notability of a living person, Indika fails under WP:V; it has no inline citations. It appears cricketarchive is a primary source. One appearance fails WP:BLP1E. For a player whose first name is unknown, WP:NODEADLINE is being stretched; it appears NEVER.

Indika played in one match, for a team that itself appears unworthy of note. Indika's team has not won a championship since it was founded a hundred forty years ago.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhadow (talk • contribs)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Fails WP:GNG and the coverage is routine.Now the the subject has played a single match with his contribution being insufficient and has retired now the subject technically meets WP:NCRIC as he has played just 1 Match but the subject comprehensively fails the General Notability Guideline and has long retired last played the 1 match in in 1988-89 thus ending any scope of future contribution or any hope of meeting General Notability Guideline and as Per this discussion subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to.NSPORTS does not supersede GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:24, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment As it is mentioned above, WP:BLP1E is not necessarily relevant (I did wonder about using it as an arguement myself in the past!) as it does state that

  In addition, some subject specific notability guidelines such as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) provide criteria that may support the notability of certain individuals who are known chiefly for one event.

  Whilst I'm in a quoting mood, NSPORTS also states

  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

  so just because it passes WP:CRIN it does not mean that voting for delete in this case is violating NPOV.Spike 'em (talk) 13:17, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
• Comment -- Spike 'emm -- It's not a global criterion, but consider whether the subject, in his one appearance, scored a duck (as in an egg-shaped zero). I could have achieved the same record. That's not a notable event -- not notable enough in my view to break the WP:BLP1E standard. Rhadow (talk) 13:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete - the discussion that Pharaoh of the Wizards links to is the most recent attempt to resolve precisely this sort of issue with NSPORTS and its perceived inclusivity. The subject here does not, as far as I can tell, meet the GNG. I'm sure that the CricInfo profile for the same player will be produced soon enough (it's here to save anyone looking). It adds nothing that is not in the CricketArchive profile. That leaves us with a position where the forenames and age of the subject are unknown and where we must assume they are probably still living. The information we do have is his surname, an initial and the fact that he probably appeared for Galle in a First-class match in the 1988/89 season.

Therefore we do not, in my view, have the "Significant coverage" which "addresses the topic directly and in detail" required to presume that the subject meets the WP:GNG. We simply don't know enough about the chap and have no indication, other than a sole appearance in a match judged to be First-class in status, of any notability. It is possible that suitable, in depth sources could be uncovered to show this. In which case I would have no problem with the article being re-created. I'd even be prepared to give a period of time for someone to find something, presumably in Sinhalese newspaper archives or in the archives of Galle CC, but, given the time frame in which he made his sole appearance I feel it is unlikely that such sources will be uncovered and therefore opt to delete, with the option of re-creating if they are - frankly, it's not as if there's much to recreate, is there? Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet GNG. Nothing to write about other than the single match he appeared in. Dee03 15:19, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

• Weak Delete – Per this discussion, subject-specific notability guidelines do not supersede the general notability guideline, except in clear cases where GNG does not apply to. As it is the single most recent consensus on the notability of sport bios, I feel obliged to go with the result of the discussion: NSPORTS does not supersede GNG. This really does need to be reflected on sport guideline pages, though, as this can seriously mislead people. The 'weak' is rather because that closure has not been linked or obeyed much, and is not in common use. Also, I will note that less coverage has to be applied for this article to be considered notable. J947^{( c ) (m)} 22:42, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

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.