Talk:T. K. Sukumaran

message: He played 2 first class matches in his life, and we don't know enough about him to warrant an article.
Does Wikipedia have an article on every single person who has ever played first class cricket?  Seriously, let's wipe this guy. Myrrideon (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: See here... Proposed deletion is the way to go if an article is uncontroversially a deletion candidate, Best wishes, --Badgernet (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't think that this warranted a prod, since you at least contested it already.  Hence AFD was the right way to go.  In the AFD, the following questions were made:
* First class - were the matches really first class?
At the time, they most certainly were not regarded as first class, as there was no first class structure in India, nor were they recognised by any governing body as first class.  India joined test cricket in 1932 and before that joined the ICC in 1926; hence any matches prior to that should not be considered to be first class.  Countering that, however, is that the Madras Presidency Matches were generally held in high regard, and whilst they are not officially regarded as first class prior to 1926, both Cricinfo and Cricket Archive list them as such.  With 2 reliable sources, we have to accept this.
* Does 2 first class matches make someone notable?
Apparently it does!  Nobody mentioned that his sort-of playing for his country (although not really, playing for Indians against an Indian based European Team is not the same as representing your country) elevated the status of his notoriety claims.  But apparently playing 2 matches makes someone notable enough for an article - even if the games were not officially first class.  This then means that we are now required to have articles on every single first class cricketer ever, including players who played in 1 match in a game that at the time was not considered to be first class, and a game which right now is not considered to be first class in official circles.  The people have spoken!  Wikipedia is now going to be overrun with articles about cricketers!
* Is it relevant that we don't know a single thing about him - even down to his name, date of birth or place of birth?
Apparently not.  Referring to him as "T K" without knowing what the T and K mean apparently doesn't matter.  Nor does it apparently matter that we don't know a single thing about his history.  The fact that Cricinfo refers to him by a different name also apparently doesn't matter.  It seems that it is perfectly acceptable to have a biographical article about someone who may well not have existed.  His name might have been entirely different to what is suggested there, and so forth.  It might be that the real person behind this actually had a long career and played more than these 2 games.
The article is nonetheless entirely useless as a reference source, merely stating that we have someone who we'd like to write a decent article on, but we don't have any references for.  Just the same, people in the AFD quite excitedly stated that he warrants an article.  Hence prod was inappropriate.  It remains to be seen whether this article will ever be of a quality that makes it encyclopaedic. Myrrideon (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Read the site guidelines.  BlackJack | talk page 10:03, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does this warrant an article?