Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. K. Sukumaran

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep, nomination withdrawn, with no other arguments for deletion raised. Renaming is an editorial decision not for AFD to decide. Davewild (talk) 10:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

T. K. Sukumaran

T. K. Sukumaran played in 2 allegedly first class matches [1] and [2], according to the obscure Cricket Archive. There is no record of him at all in Cricinfo, which has a comprehensive record of all first class games and all first class players who have ever played. According to Cricket Archive, he later played in 5 other matches for Federated Malay States, an earlier name for Malaysia [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. Given that Malaysia has never played first class cricket, I would suggest that those 5 were not first class matches. It states on Cricket Archive that the first 2 matches were first class, but I do not believe that they were. If they were, they would be listed on CricInfo. India did not play test cricket until 1932 (see: India_national_cricket_team) and were not invited into the Imperial Cricket Council until 1926; hence any matches involving them prior to 1926 did not count as first class. Therefore, the 2 matches that Sukumaran played in 1924 and 1925 could not possibly be first class matches. Therefore, he fails WP:ATHLETE, because he did not play at a high enough level. Furthermore, even if it were argued that for some reason those matches should count as first class even though they actually were not, the fact is that he only played in 2 matches. 2 matches is nowhere near enough to be considered to be notable. If we had an article on every player in the world that had ever played first class cricket, we would be looking at over a million articles. He clearly did not do anything significant outside of that, as there is no record of any details about him at all - no story, no details of who he was, nothing. Indeed, the only place that mentions him, Cricket Archive, does not even give his date or place of birth, a photo of him or his full name. We cannot even verify if this person even really existed. How can we possibly justify writing an article on someone who we cannot verify even exists, let alone anything about him? Myrrideon (talk) 18:59, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP - Just because this person is not mentioned on cricinfo does not mean that he is not a first class cricketer. Cricket archive is as good of a source if not better than cricinfo as a reliable source for players. Therefore I believe that the games he played were first class if cricket archive says they are.

Also there are not nearly a million players that have played first class cricket. I think off the top of my head that crciket archive have a database of just over 100,000 players in which all first class cricketers are included. Also some of this number will be non notable lancashire league players for example. I hope if others agree with me that the nominator will withdraw this deletion.02blythed (talk) 21:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. —Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:28, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I trust CricketArchive (which is not obscure to cricket fans) to have an accurate list of what was a first-class cricket match, so this player would pass WP:ATHLETE, having played at the highest level of the game, and being reported doing so by an authoritative source. I must admit, I'm not sure why anyone would choose to add this particular player to Wikipedia ahead of many others, but that's not our concern here. Stephen Turner (Talk) 22:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - CricketArchive is hardly obscure, it is infact in my opinion better than Cricinfo for multiple statistical & historical facts. The design is a little outdated and offputting, but it is run by two statisticians including Philip Bailey (cricket writer), who, as you can see from his article, is a highly reputable source. CA is definitely reliable and thus the facts in the article are verifiable. "Just 2 matches" isn't a reason for deletion either: first-class cricket is the highest level of domestic cricket, and thus even one appearance is enough to pass the criterion of WP:ATHLETE. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 23:14, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The games, as stated above, are NOT first class matches, as defined by the International Cricket Council. Therefore, regardless of how reliable Cricket Archive normally is, they clearly got it wrong this time. Furthermore, there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to suggest that these were important matches, regardless of whether they were first class or not. If they were important, why is it that Cricket Archive is the ONLY place that has any mention of them or of him? Sorry, but someone who does not exist doesn't deserve an article. I think that people should read the links and what I said before spamming in keep because of an allegation, based on falsely trusting Cricket Archive, that he played 2 obscure first class matches. Those matches were not officially regarded as first class, not by the ICC. Myrrideon (talk) 04:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Can I first ask how you come to the emphatic conclusion that the ICC does not recognise the Madras Presidency matches as first-class? I would point out that, officially, there were no first-class matches outside England before 1947 when the ICC finally decided to make a ruling (in England, the ruling was made by MCC in 1895). Hence you could argue that, strictly speaking, Bradman did not become a first-class player until a couple of years before he retired and Grace had been active for thirty seasons before he became first-class!

To deal sensibly with such a nonsense, cricket historians must decide which matches before the official rulings were first-class and so it becomes a matter of opinion. But, given that the cricket historians are in general agreement and they are mostly notable authorities, their published views are verifiable and invariably credible.

This brings me to CricketArchive which is, in effect, another cricket historian like John Arlott or whoever. The site is by no means obscure in the cricket world. It has a great reputation and is arguably the most reliable source on the internet for information about top-class cricket. It is widely quoted by the cricket project on WP. I agree with AllynJ above that CA is superior to CricInfo.

It may well be that you can provide another source which states that the Madras Presidency matches were not first-class. Fine, if you can do that. But for our purposes it doesn't matter because we already have one verifiable and reputable source which says the games are first-class and the article writer is entitled to use that to justify his article. As Stephen says, any player who is deemed by CricketArchive (and similarly reputable sources) to have taken part in a major cricket match (the scope of which is not limited to first-class) meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. I would also refer you to WP:CRIN which is the WP:CRIC view of notability.

There is no doubt whatsoever that T. K. Sukumaran is a notable subject. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have Cricket Archive says that the games were first class. On the contrary, you have Wisden, Cricinfo and International Cricket Council says that they were not (and are still not regarded as such today). You have no other references outside of Cricket Archive that suggest that these matches were regarded as first class, or are today regarded as first class. Furthermore, you have the fact that this guy does not have a name, place of birth, date of birth, or any information about him, other than that he allegedly played 2 matches. Do we really need to have mentions of anonymous people who we know nothing about in an encyclopaedia? Its nonsensical to include him. All of the arguments above are false. Myrrideon (talk) 06:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that Cricinfo does not consider it as a first class match ? Tintin 06:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, here is a google search on the name [8]. 220 hits. Not a single one has anything to do with cricket (aside from the ones from Cricket Archive (already proven to be false)) and from Wikipedia here (also proven false). Where are the reliable references? Myrrideon (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Your attitude towards CricketArchive is out of order. It is a reputable site that is widely quoted by many cricket authorities including WP:CRIC. You have not answered Tintin's question above re CricInfo nor mine about the ICC. Where does it say that the Madras Presidency matches were not first-class?

According to this article in CricInfo, the matches were first-class. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 06:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pushing the Nayudu argument a little further, CK's brother CL Nayudu played one of Sukumaran's matches. http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/40/40117/First-Class_Matches.html is the list of CL's three fc matches according to Cricketarchive. You'll have to explain how Cricinfo arrived at the conclusion that CL Nayudu played in three fc matches and ended up with exactly the same fc stats, if Cricinfo does not consider the Presidency match as first class matches. Tintin 07:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And in any case here is the clincher. And the other one too. CricInfo has these very matches in its archive after all, contrary to all the rubbish above about how CricInfo does not recognise them. I don't know why I didn't check earlier. This is all a complete waste of time caused by someone making a WP:POINT. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 07:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is someone who doesn't warrant a biography. Myrrideon (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what POINT you think that I am trying to make. I am making the point that you can't have a biography about someone with no accurate info on them! Isn't that a legitimate thing to suggest??? FFS Myrrideon (talk) 08:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant Withdraw, and change name to his actual name - per [9]. His name is TK Sukumana not TK Sukumaran. That would probably explain why there is no info on him. Of course, that name might not be right either. I strongly suggest at least finding out his real name if we are insisting on having an article on him. I do not think that someone with no name or info warrants an article, but hey. Perhaps if/when someone finds out who he really is/was then we can write the article properly. Myrrideon (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article is a WP:STUB and is perfectly legitimate as it stands. If and when someone finds more information, perhaps in one of the many excellent books on Indian cricket, the stub can be expanded. As for his name, the scorecards quoted by both CA and CI call him Sukumaran. It is almost certainly the CI profile that has misspelt his name. BlackJack | ^{talk page} 08:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has to be a typo in Cricinfo. "Sukumaran" means handsome in several Indian languages and is a common, though old-fashioned, name in Kerala but not that common (as far as I know) in Tamil Nadu. There is no such name "Sukumana" in South India. Tintin 10:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.