Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Janitha Hewawasam

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 keep. Passes WP:NCRIC. (non-admin closure) TheSandDoctor (talk) 05:05, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Janitha Hewawasam

[edit]
Janitha Hewawasam (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)

No secondary sources since 2009. A search in 2017 finds none in English. Fails WP:BLP1E Rhadow (talk) 16:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • POINT OF ORDER. This AfD is disruptive and based on a false premise. NSPORTS subjects are expressly outside the scope of BLP1E. The assertion that no English sources can be found is illogical to the point of being ridiculous. The subject is Sri Lankan and sources are Sinhalese per WP:NEXIST as outlined at other AfDs. Furthermore, BLP1E means "single event" and yet, as the article says, this chap played in TWO top-class matches over a two year period. Nominator has been warned about persistently abusing guidelines by misrepresentation. Jack | talk page 21:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nope. Placing bogus templates on peoples' talk pages so you can later run around screaming "THEY'VE BEEN WARNED" is not on. And be reminded that falsely accusing people of dishonesty is itself actionable misconduct. Reyk YO! 11:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So is WP:Wikistalking so I suggest you comply with your own bullshit. As for Rhadow, we will see if heeds the warning, which is entirely legitimate, and refrains from misrepresenting BLP1E in future. Jack | talk page 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Calm down. I am neither stalking anyone nor lying. Please drop the personal attacks and belligerent attitude. Reyk YO! 16:19, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You followed me to Jenks' page and to Rhadow's page and to all of these AFDs so that is a form of stalking. Bullshitting and lying are not necessarily the same thing. Rhadow has misrepresented guidelines and other situations several times so he needed warning about it especially if he really is someone with only 2k edits. He has even lied in his answer to me on his own talk page (qv and see if you can spot the deliberate lie). Anyway, why don't you join the discussion at CRIC as you should be able to contribute. Thanks. Jack | talk page 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm confused, why are you continuing to alter your deletion rationale? "No press coverage", that we can find right now in English, fair enough. "BLP1E", that's true of almost everyone on Wikipedia that they're only known for the one thing they're known for, including 99 percent of cricketers, Test, ODI, first-class, whatever. "BLP unreferenced", an outright lie.
The fact that none of these guidelines has anything to do with the basic guideline which we've been working to for the last ten, twelve years of a single first-class appearance is proof that those who wish to delete cricket articles which clearly meet guidelines are doing so to simply bias the project based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT criteria. Which is sad. Bobo. 16:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 17:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes WP:CRIN. Lepricavark (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. In addition to CRIN, subject also passes WP:NEXIST especially re Sinhalese sources. Article has been improved with THREE reliable sources inline now, plus the NEXIST pointer. Jack | talk page 21:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:CRIN. The basic contradiction between the pages which outline the so-called "guidelines" of GNG and SNG renders both completely meaningless, meaning that WP:CRIN is the only logical arbiter. Bobo. 22:27, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - now that the nominator's main concerns about this article, true or false as they may have been, have been dealt with, this renders the original rationale for deletion entirely obsolete, and as such this AfD should be treated this way. Bobo. 22:29, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:CRIN, has multiple sources, and there are likely to be more, though perhaps not many in the English language. Johnlp (talk) 22:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete it as this is established by previous AfDs that bios of these players should not be all stats. I don't think we will ever have coverage from which we can write enough biography for him. Not discussed in detail by multiple sources so we can write enough without WP:OR. Name-checked only by match records in different sources which only verify him per WP:V but this still fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not all stats so you can't invoke WP:NOTSTATS, for example. It passes GNG because of WP:NEXIST given that we have proven in the earlier case that Sinhalese sources do exist and that they can provide additional information. Jack | talk page 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This vote can, according to the user's edit summary, be completely disregarded. Bobo. 15:37, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge into a suitable list of players by club. A third of this article is statistics bloated grotesquely into a semblance of prose, and the rest is a bizarre footnote that is not about the person at all, but unsuccessfully tries to argue that articles of this kind should be exempt from WP:N and WP:V. Hopeless. If this ends up kept, I hope it's at least agreed that the footnote is self-serving mendacious drivel; to my knowledge we haven't had a wikiproject push its propaganda in the mainspace since the Article Rescue Squadron got their AfD canvassing template deleted. Reyk YO! 11:09, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absolute rubbish. Jack | talk page 11:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reyk, you are lucky that we still give you credence in your arguments. If you are willing to write an article which lists every cricketer for a team (not just a spotty few which have been deleted by others as per WP:IDONTLIKEIT), please do, however, judging by recent pathetic activity in attempting to create such a list, these will probably not be given much of an airing... And please be thankful that we in fact give our time to "bloat" these articles into prose text, which is apparently unnecessary and you would rather see as statistics... which is nonsense. Bobo. 15:25, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We wouldn't have to be writing such "self-serving mendacious drivel" if people were able to follow (and understand) insultingly simple guidelines... and you think it's the cricket project at the wrong? Bobo. 15:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, per DGG at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/L. Dinaparna, "the correct interpretation of presumed in WP is the same as in the real world – it will be considered to be the case unless there is evidence to show otherwise" and so it follows that "presumed notability means the subject meeting the presumption is notable unless it can be demonstrated that it is not". No one has demonstrated non-notability and the subject clearly complies with its subject specific criteria.
Finally, per I JethroBT when closing the directly relevant Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination) with a keep result, "there's no dispute that the individual played cricket professionally, and we generally keep articles on professional players". He went on to confirm that "the article has been improved and new sources have been added both before and after this AfD, which is consistent with the notion that coverage of this individual may be available, even if it is hard to access (as evidenced by notes in the discussion) and not present in the article at this time (as a result of which) some early recommendations to delete (were) re-evaluated in that light". The additional information came from a Sinhalese newspaper proving WP:NEXIST, as is the case with any Sri Lankan first-class cricketer. Jack | talk page 15:21, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, nominator's rationale for deletion of this article may not be relevant for afd ie. "no secondary source since 2009", so? an article doesn't require "uptodate" sources for the subject to be notable, ditto for "none (sources) in English", although its nice to have english language sources to refer to, again does not preclude a subject from the enwp, as for "Fails WP:BLP1E", doen't this mean the subject can't be non-notable due to not being known for just the one event? other editors have been saying keep due to meeting WP:CRIN which is fine, just like to mention at the top of WP:NSPORTS, "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 ..", also the footnote added to the article is truly bizarre, i suggest it may be appropriate for the talkpage but not for the article page, anyway thanks for an interesting discussion. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And is, in any case, now entirely untrue and can be disregarded. Not that it was ever true in the first place... I don't even understand what "since 2009" means. Bobo. 16:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad it's an interesting discussion. Nothing like a good old-fashioned bunfight, is there? Many times over. Jack | talk page 19:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Nomination is completely irrelevant. Notability is not temporary, and there are foreign language sources. Plus he passes WP:NCRIC. Let's close this, already - it's clearly erroneous. Smartyllama (talk) 16:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly there are a lot of first-class cricketers who have been sent up for deletion recently in direct contradiction with any number of notability guidelines. The fact that the deletion rationale (no secondary sources) is patently false is another matter entirely and was immediately addressed. The deletion rationale had zip to do with WP:CRIN and could have been fixed with a simple note or message - or indeed by the person who sent the article to AfD in the first place... Bobo. 16:14, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Dinamina Match Report Old Cambrians v Antonians SC from 1991 in Sinahalese that Jack claims his friend saw, describes two teams that do not include the Panadura team. The reference does not support the article. Rhadow (talk) 16:30, 27 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Janitha_Hewawasam&oldid=1137942946"