Talk:Suresh Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer)

Contested deletion

This page should NOT be speedily deleted because the nomination is false. The nominator claims that this article is simply a revival of the former one which was a bare stub with no inline citations. This one contains much more information and all of it is referenced by reputable sources. The article complies with the terms of WP:NCRIC. It is a stub, true, but it may be expanded and enhanced in due course as Sri Lankan sources are investigated and additional information comes to light. --Jack | ^{talk page} 21:04, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

The article contains no new references, and any extra "information" is trivial and tangential. StAnselm (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

That is a lie. The old article had no inline citations and only one vague external link to CricketArticle. This version references ESPNcricinfo and is precise re the CricketArchive references. Additional background information has been added so that readers can see the importance of the club, the competition, the venue and, as a result, the player. Stop trying to dismiss this article as a revival of the old one-line stub and take it on its merit as a viable WP:STUB that complies with WP:NCRIC. You are simply attempting to make a WP:POINT on the shallow basis of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Jack | ^{talk page} 21:17, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Clearly no more than a revival with additional information about the event in which this person took part in added. As far as I can see no additional information about the person is included. Notability should not be inherited in any way - including from an event. I would support a speedy deletion on G4 grounds - although the page is different, the details about this (presumably) living person seem essentially identical with padding which adds nothing about the subject of the article the only substantial difference. It's close though and I imagine that this may have to go to AfD. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Article meets WP:NCRIC, which is a community discussed and agreed guideline. Anti-democratic users (including one who has no affiliation with the cricket project) are attempting to undermine community consensus. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 21:30, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Keep. Article meets WP:NCRIC, which sd said above is a community discussed and agreed guideline. (However impugning the good faith of those who think that the article should be deleted is to be regretted and risks being counter-productive.) JH (talk page) 16:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I voted in favour of keeping the original article at the original AfD discussion, but there were only two of us from the regulars at WP:CRIC who voted that way (and another who shaded towards deletion because of the lack of content in the original article). It would be hypocritical of me not to vote to keep this new, marginally upgraded article (though I am not sure a vote on a talk page carries much weight). But I am uncomfortable with the way this is being done. The previous AfD stood there for more than a week and on the balance of the votes cast, the closing admin certainly reflected the majority; the subsequent DRV was more a commentary on lack of knowledge of the sporting notability criteria, and it was the DRV, not the AfD, that was inconclusive. My view then (and now) is that there is merit, which CRIN/NCRIC encourages, in having a simple-to-apply notability rule for all cricketers and also that, as an encyclopedia, WP should be aiming to be comprehensive, which means that all cricketers who have played in major matches should (eventually) have articles, even where there is scant information on them. I recognise that others, in good faith, do not share my views, and maybe we do need to have a proper discussion somewhere about this, because it has big implications for a lot of work that long-term contributors have done. But I'm not sure this is the place to do it, or whether GF is being wholeheartedly applied here. Johnlp (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Hmm - sorry I'm not trying to stir the pot here - but how is someone (that we don't even know his full name) and played only one season at a top level, Notable. Don't get it! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Newspaper references

I have reverted the addition of material based on newspaper reports. There is something very fishy going on; what is it exactly that was included in the match report? His date of birth? The fact that he was 21 when he made his debut? If he was playing for Kurunegala in 1999, why is he included in the Galle v Old Cambrians report? I think we need some sort of translation, or at least precis, of the article(s). StAnselm (talk) 12:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

There is certainly something very fishy going on. Okay, you've asked the questions so I'll answer them. The report of the first match mentions that "Suresh Perera, a 21-year old off spinner, is making his debut for Old Cambrians. Perera is a student in Moratuwa". This has, of course, been translated from Sinhalese. The date of birth came from the ACS information but, in view of the uncertainty about when it wa spublished, what it actually contained, and given that the latest version is still unpublished, I've agreed with Harrias that we should use the newspaper. I agree we should say c.1970 for his DOB, not the date which the ACS have obviously got from a different source. As for "the Galle v Old Cambrians report", I made a mistake. I am not perfect. The 1999 report is of the Galle v Kurunegala Youth match. Anything else? Jack | ^{talk page} 13:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)