Deletion of S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) (2nd nomination)

Comment: Article complies with  because the subject is a first-class cricketer as |verified by inline citations from two reputable sources which are widely used by . Admittedly, the article is a  and additional information is desirable, but with the two reputable sources being in accord with each other, the article can exist as a stub pending enhancement in due course. Steps are currently being taken to investigate local sources if possible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:V||WP:CRIC||WP:STUB)

Comment: Article complies with , a community agreed guideline. Once again we have people attempting to undermine community consensus
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC)

Comment: I closed the previous AfD, which was contested, so instead of closing I'll comment in my capacity as an editor: if all we know about a sportsperson is statistics from match reports, as is the case here, then we simply do not have enough material for a biography. What we have is a line in a table of sports statistics, and that's the level of coverage appropriate here. In policy terms, fails  for clear lack of substantial, reliable third-party coverage. The topic-specific notability guideline creates merely a presumption of notability; if thorough searches (as in this case) find nothing more of substance, then there is no basis for an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: The key point is that guidelines should not be treated as binary, but should be treated as a way of thinking. I think the page does no harm, but it does no good either. A simple mention in a scorecard, which is basically all there is, is insufficient for an article. It is fine for the cricket project to aim for comprehensive coverage, but that does not mean that there needs to be an article for any cricketer who played in a first class games ever.  is fine as a guideline, but I give more weight to . There has been no in-depth coverage of this person, and a few trivial mentions do not suffice to counter this, in my view
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:GNG)

Comment: I have removed the addition as currently failing  and therefore violating . This needs to be ''verifiable'' (which, of course, is not the same as ''verified''). It needs to be in some sort of published form. Of course, it also raises the question of where our friend at ACS got the information, and whether we are able to access that as well. Of course, we don't have to ''access'' it, we only have to know where it is
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:BLP)

Comment: Article passes . Too many here are wanting to delete due to ''do not like'' or ''too short
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC)

Comment: WP:N makes it clear that meeting a subject-specific guideline () does not guarantee that a topic will be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. This article is a stub and the fact that basic personal information such as full name cannot be sourced suggests that it will be . Therefore we have to consider if it would be better merged into a larger article, such as List Old Cambrians cricketers or 1991 Saravanamuttu Trophy, or redirected there. Much of the content is not subject specific, e.g. "This was played at the Tyronne Fernando Stadium in Moratuwa from 1 to 3 November 1991. Old Cambrians' opponents were the Antonians Sports Club, who won the match by 8 wickets". The remaining content can be included in other articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:PERMASTUB)

Comment: A biography is a detailed description of a person's life that portrays a subject's experience of these life events. Basic facts like education, work, and relationships also are a part of the detailed description of a biography. Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, adds a requirement that the event descriptions need to be based on reliable sources. Here, there is not enough reliable source material from which to write an article on the topic. Even without the Verifiability requirement, there is not enough source material from which to write an article on the topic. There is no source material from which to obtain a detailed description, and there are no life event or S. Perera's experiences of these life events. There's not even enough source material from which to obtain basic facts like education, work, and relationships of S. Perera.  is clear in its requirements and, in this case, there is no multiple coverage sources that address the topic directly and in detail, even considering the recent update using information "received via an ACS contact from a Sinhalese language newspaper" noted above. Due to the lack of sufficient source material, the prior text reviewed during AfD1 and the present text is not capable of improvement to the level of being a Wikipedia article. As such, the page should be deleted
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: the irony regarding "verifiability" is the following. Nothing is technically verifiable by anyone unless we were there  at the time. And if we were basing an article's information from being there at the time, this contravenes . This being the case, there should technically be *no* articles on Wikipedia as these two guidelines completely contradict each other
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:PRIMARY)

Comment: per : There are sources, but not sufficient sources to pass GNG. The match reports are trivial mentions- if you want to say something about a cricket team(notable), those who play are usually mentioned. But notability is | not inherited. The cricket sites mentions are trivial, too- despite giving some information. These are large databases with standard information about lots of cricket players. It is just one player, and there is not a lot of information...Neither being one of many in a statistics database nor being mentioned in passing as one of the players who played in a match one or two times makes you notable
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTINHERITED)

Comment: although I would also be happy with a '''redirect''' in the short term in order to preserve the article text whilst either further research continues or a wider review, taking opinions from throughout the project, of the notability guidelines for cricketers (and possibly the other sports specific criteria) takes place. My reasoning for delete is that NCRIC is being interpreted in a simplistic boolean fashion when, in cases such as this, I feel the lack of verifiability is a major factor which must be taken into consideration. , the direct parent of  is no where close to being met. The fact that NCRIC differs so markedly from SPORTCRIT (which mirrors the GNG so much better) as well as the simplistic boolean approach is my reasoning for thinking that there needs to be a review of NCRIC. In this specific case we essentially have a scorebook entry. This has, at some point, found it's way onto a database, possibly via a book, and then that database has found its way to CA and CI. All very well and good, and if I want a score book style entry I'll go there. Without any form of additional information to verify the identity of the individual concerned I feel that the verifiability of the article is in too much doubt for us to include within this project. This doesn't mean that other cricketers with just one first class, List A or T20 appearance will necessarily fall into the same category, just as it doesn't mean that a cricketer without an appearance in any of those types of games is necessarily non-notable and should be precluded from inclusion
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SPORTCRIT||WP:NCRIC)