Deletion of C. Sandanayake

Comment: I've struck my above !vote and am changing here now that {{U|Johnlp}} has provided inline cites to a website owned by ESPN, which has a history of fact-checking. That is a , so  is now satisfied. These meet , so notability is presumed in the absence of significant reason to believe these articles violate policies other than notability. One of the delete !voters says it best when they say "It is time to scrap the junk notability guidelines for cricket players." Perhaps, but that requires strong community consensus far outside the realm of individual AfDs. If your goal is to scrap a specific notability guideline, take it to an RfC, per . We don't do that at an AfD of all places
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:V||WP:NCRIC||WP:TALKFIRST)

Comment: I also endorse {{noping|Dee03}} and {{noping|Saqib}}'s comment. The sources added are mere statistical records that shows existences and verifiability but never meet minimum guideline for biography. I wonder at some keep votes whose reason are solely based on " they are verifiable " Verifiability is never reason for inclusion on Wikipedia, millions of things are verifiable but unencyclopedic. Despite Notability being guideline it is the first in inclusion determination, then verifiability. If something is '''not notable''' even if it's verifiable it cannot be included in encyclopedia. The Verifiability policy itself makes this clear outright, 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:ONUS)

Comment: for lack of significant coverage that discusses each subject directly and in detail. Wikipedia does not aim to create an exhaustive directory of all athletes who played in a given game. In the case here,  is sorely lacking, to the point that the full names of the subjects are not known
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Has the AFD nom followed the steps in ? That is, to challenge the presumption of NSPORT / NCRIC here, you must show that there are no other sources available for these athletes to meet our content policies. That includes searching local print sources. I don't see that.  Just because the article is only sourced to statistics sources doesn't meant it fails the notability guideline, the AFD nominator must show that it likely would fail by reasonable absence of sources
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:BEFORE)

Comment: All pass , which is the core SSG of which  is the fuller version
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NCRIC||WP:CRIN)