Talk:Vinay Kumar

Notability

• This page either needs to be deleted, or it needs a disambiguation page. I was looking for an authorlink to Dr. Vinay Kumar, the primary author of Robbins Pathology. If anyone should be listed on this page, it should be him. Otherwise, it creates confusion. Perhaps this page should simply be deleted. Chaldor (talk) 08:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• I came here look for prof Kumar too, I support deletion 124.168.161.151 (talk) 09:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC).

• Article changed over to Dr. Kumar's profile. Hopefully we can build it up from here. Chaldor (talk) 00:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• I reverted the page back to the cricket player. I dumped this content in another article for Dr. Kumar Vinay Kumar (pathologist) Chaldor (talk) 01:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Potential BLP issue

I object to the inclusion of the term "10th rate trundler". I am not against including criticism, but according to WP:BLPSTYLE:

"Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly, conservatively, and in a disinterested tone. Do not give disproportionate space to particular viewpoints; the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."

Accordingly, apart from being disparaging towards the subject, the phrase "10th rate trundler" is also the viewpoint of Haigh Gideon, a minority of one. I am sorry for following your contributions to this article. I would usually not do this, but since this is a biography, I couldn't let this pass. According to the policy page, the burden of evidence for inclusion of the material is on you, and therefore, I would request you to please remove the statement until this dispute is resolved. Thanks. Telco (talk) 19:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

By your flawed logic, the views of anyone should be discarded as everyone is a minority of one. Haigh is in the A-grade of cricket journalists; he published his opinion in Australia's only national newspaper. His viewpoint helps contextualise the one and only Test match in which the subject of the article has played. So no, I'm not going to remove it. If you can find other quotes from reputable journalists or writers, perhaps saying different things, you're more than welcome to include them as well. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I have initiated a discussion on WP:BLPN. Thanks. Telco (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

A ridiculous bit of POV-pushing. And I suggest that Mkativerata reads WP:3RR too... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Novel that an editor with multiple edit-warring blocks should be giving a lecture on 3RR, which of course I haven't broken. Nonetheless, I propose the following text that uses less colourful sources:

Former Pakistan fast bowler Wasim Akram called Vinay Kumar's lack of pace in the Test— bowling at 120 kilometres per hour in his opening overs—"disappointing". He was left out of India's team for the fourth and final Test of the series in Adelaide, Ashwin returning to the team in his place.

The point here is that multiple reliable commentators and newspapers criticised both Vinay Kumar's selection and his performance. For example, the Times of India said his selection "baffled most".[1] Dean Jones called for him to be dropped.[2]. Cricinfo gave his performance 2 out of 10 and said: "Vinay Kumar will not forget Perth and David Warner [who carted him around the ground] in a hurry."[3] We can't ignore all of that. --Mkativerata (talk) 01:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead of quoting Akram or someone else, can we say something like "In <MONTH> <YEAR>, the decision to include him in the Indian cricket squad for <SERIES> was criticized by many cricket commentators due to lack of form and performance." [or something similarly worded] Telco (talk) 06:10, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with that approach is: how many is "many"? The safest approach, avoiding original research, is to pick one commentator and quote him or her directly. --Mkativerata (talk) 09:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Using direct quotations is not a good practice for BLPs. Consider removing "many" and simply use "cricket commentators". Telco (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

"Using direct quotations is not a good practice for BLPs". Where on earth would you get that idea from. That's plain bizarre. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

The encyclopedic long term details are that he was chosen and he bowled thirteen overs and got a wicket - the whole team played not very well. In the single match test career of this person adding such an insult from a sports reporter of the opposition is totally undue. The long term detail is that it was his first test and he got a wicket, not some partisan insult. - if he had a lengthly test career section then some comments from notable sports reporters may well be worthy of inclusion - at this stage and the desired edit was totally undue. Youreallycan 17:20, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

We are debating a different edit now. How he performed in his only Test appearance is absolutely encyclopaedic, and bowling figures alone don't tell us. --Mkativerata (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I know what your discussing - Although you think and vocalize my foolishness,I can read. Adding opinion, partisan at that, about a single test is totally undue. Its not a, look how crap he was, but a, and he was chosen for his first Indian test appearance - that is what is notable - not that jonny aussie press called him a (add your insult here). Youreallycan 19:39, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Wasim Akram is not a member of the Australian press. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

W Akram a fast bowler called his speed at 120 kmh "disappointing" - An ex Pakistani cricketer - no partisan there with India then - the subject bowled thirteen overs - you are focusing unduly on negative opinions - in his career it is a massive award to be chosen for your first national appearance in a test and that is the primary encyclopedic long term focus here. Youreallycan 19:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course his selection for the Test is important. No question about that. But it is also notable that a raft of ex-players and commentators criticised his performances in said Test. We have no basis to whitewash those notable criticisms from our article. I'd also be more than happy to include similar quotes praising Vinay Kumar for his performances in other matches (eg limited overs matches, to which his style is more suited). Other than that, your suggestion of Wasim's bias on the basis of nationality is shameful and derisory. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

So, feel free to add such, until you do - your desire to add negative opinion of a single appearance, his debut for his national team is undue. Youreallycan 19:56, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok give us a few days. The article is obviously due for a re-vamp. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)