Following the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Audrish Banerjee, I'd like to propose that we merge the little content we have on Audrish Banerjee into this article - probably using a note.

I didn't participate in the AfD; if I'd have realised that this list existed, I would have suggested merging the article to here - which is the suggestion of the closing admin as a solution. This is along the lines of the discussion that was had in 2018 at Talk:Chitty (cricketer) and a number of subsequent merges.

It's simple to merge and we can preserve the core content and sources for Banerjee so that if further information emerges it'll be easy to re-create the article and add those sources. If anyone objects or has any further thoughts, here's the place to make suggestions... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Support – seems like the sensible and best way forward for bios where notability is questionable, sourcing is entirely scorecard based, and everything can be adequately summarised in one or two short sentences. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oppose - if you do so just for this one article, you might as well do so for every single article I've created on almost every Ranji Trophy cricketer. Nobody suggested this in the AfD and therefore I am not considering this as a solution. This article and Chitty are very different - as it is, this individual has all biographical information added. What more do you want of this article? His shoe size? If the only difference between the articles I have created and the articles Lugnuts has created are a purdy little infobox and the word "references", I suggest these issues are easily fixable. Sankar Bhattacharjee is the first example I come across. Bobo. 07:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's a pragmatic solution which preserves the information and keeps the article space available if further information is forthcoming. That might happen, but it seems unlikely that anyone is going to be able to do so just now.

I would rather put forward a pragmatic solution to the problem. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've added a merge hat to the Sankar Bhattacharjee article as this has also been identified as a possible candidate. I'll add a note to the list in a while, but we know of a total of 4 cricket matches the chap played in, one of which (his first) was first-class. Given that these all took place in the mid-80s, I feel it's unlikely that any more useful information is going to be found to add to the article.. There may be other articles I find later today to add to this as well: I'll list them here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I never know what other information you are searching for that would be of any further benefit to an article other than flowery language. All necessary information is there. Bobo. 08:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd like to know that sources about the person exist and can be reasonably expected to be found within a reasonable time frame. This goes to the heart of notability. Bhattacharjee played four matches, the first of which was his first-class debut. That can't be right - not even in 1980s India. There must be more about the bloke - hut where? Is it accessible? Can we find it? Or do we rely on what is more or less synthesis from a database to provide a "biography"? In Banerjee's case, he played some under-19 matches for two seasons, plays an under-19 Test and then makes his first-class debut; and then totally disappears from our knowledge. What happened? Why? Again, the sources may be there - which is why I didn't vote delete at the AfD - but I'm unconvinced we're going to find them anytime soon. So we can summarise stuff here - using either notes or, if someone's willing to put the time in, a set of tables.

Note that I really don't care too much about these articles. I read the AfD close and thought it might be worth trying to suggest a pragmatic approach. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If you want that if this article then you want that of every single article I've created within the last X years. Sounds like censorship for censorship's sake. Bobo. 08:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support- We generally expect more from biographies than just statistics culled from a match scorecard. And a better way to present stats is to list them along with similar stats, which gives the reader the ability to contrast and compare similar numerical information at a glance. This is superior to diluting very minimal info over a diffuse cloud of almost contentless microstubs that send the reader flicking madly back and forth between pages. Reyk _YO! 08:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've been saying all along that if I had enough time and energy, every single cricket team's players, including Kalat and others, would have links to List of X cricketers anyway. Why did the merge argument not get suggested? Bobo. 08:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Weak oppose For your basic one-liner of X playing Y number of matches for Z where dates are known (DOB, etc), then the stub in my eyes has at least covered the basics and has some potentional for growth. I'd be more inclined to merge stubs of cricketers such as "Smith (cricketer)" which have no info on when they lived, or batting/bowling style, just that they played one match in 1850 (picking that year at random). The article has met our notability requirements, regardless if you agree or disagree with said notability, and there's no minimum size requirement for any article. Saying that readers are "flicking madly back and forth between pages" is hyperbole at best. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Firstly, it is clear that the potential for growth here is vanishingly small. Secondly, it has been determined that there is no consensus that the article meets notability requirements; all we have is the "presumed notability" requirements of a guideline that has been determined by consensus to be too inclusive. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lugnuts: - I'm sympathetic to your position here. I'm probably on the "weak(ish) merge" side, but I can certainly see that there is a massive difference between cases where we have virtually nothing to go on and chaps such as these. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for the ping - I'd forgotten about this TBH. I can see both sides of the debate, and as an inclusionist, I'll always veer towards keeping over other options. If you have the one-line stub for a cricketer who has a single appearance, then at least there's the basic skelton of an article for an editor to view and click edit. I think there's a lot of editors on WP who prefer to add bits to existing articles, rather than start one from scratch. If you have the redirect instead, then it goe to the main List of X cricketers. In my opinion, it's less likely someone will take time on working on a redirect to expand it. I know that's all a bit of guesswork, but experience of being here a long time would back those thoughts up. For example, I know that Sammyrice (hope you don't mind the ping!) has done countless expansions of one-line stubs on New Zealand cricketers. The Anglo-centric expansions will always be more prolific than the Asian subcontinent, but that's another issue. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support The main reason I created this list back in 2015 was to cover all these one-line bios in a single list. I also support boldly merging/redirecting similar PERMASTUBs into relevant team lists per WP:ATD-M. Dee03 03:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If no one objects, I think it might be helpful to ping the other editors who contributed to the AfD referenced above to seek a wider set of opinions. I'd also like to raise this on the cricket wikiproject talk page and at NSPORTS. I'll leave it a day before I do so in case anyone feels that this is unacceptable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support: I was the one who initiated the AfD^[1]. And, after following the discussions at the AfD (and at this page), I extend my support for the merge. Also, we should merge similar kinds of pages. -Hatchens (talk) 07:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @PJvanMill, AssociateAffiliate, Johnpacklambert, Smartyllama, Coolabahapple, No Great Shaker, Devonian Wombat, Stifle, and Spartaz: - all of whom took partin the AfD. I'm interested to hear any views they may have on this. I think I got everyone. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose, this person meets the notability requirements. Stub articles are perfectly okay to create, the fact that there is not a massive amount of info on this man does not mean that there should not be an article. This merge proposal flies in the face of much wider consensus of notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Devonian Wombat: any chance you could point us in the direction of that "wider consensus"? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• WP:NCRIC. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That doesn't enjoy the support of the community. Reyk _YO! 09:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• The relationship of NCRIC to NSPORTS and then to GNG is an area where there has been significant debate. I would struggle to believe that there is actually any consistent consensus when it comes to the grey area between "obviously notable" and "hmm, we know a surname". Hence this discussion. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Devonian Wombat Sure, stubs are fine to create, on the presumption that they can eventually be made into read-worthy articles. At the moment, it seems like that won't ever happen with this article. Stubs should not stay stubs forever. PJvanMill (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose The problem with that AfD is that you had someone who passes a SNG, albeit somewhat marginally, and whether he passes the GNG is actually unclear at this point - you can't say yes, you can't say no, you'd need to search offline sources (and quite possibly in languages other than English) to make any sort of clearer determination. Therefore at least to me we should err on the side of keeping the actual article, as we do - if someone has done this source search, please let me know and I'll reconsider. SportingFlyer T·C 09:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Couple of problems with that. Firstly, it shouldn't be up to those looking to consolidate and better organise our content to prove a negative. Secondly, the approach you're suggesting would allow badly sourced and virtually empty biographies of non-notable people to languish around indefinitely. That's not helpful. Thirdly, the kind of biographical coverage we generally require in stand-alone biographies isn't just deemed unnecessary by this particular wikiproject but actively resisted. I'm not about to indulge someone who wants to flood the encyclopedia with empty stublets and keep them empty. The fact remains that information that's purely statistical in nature should be presented as statistics and not dressed up as biographies. Reyk _YO! 09:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SportingFlyer Consider that merging the article into a list is not a commitment never to have an article on that person again. When more sources are found, it can always be branched back out. In this case, merging is a way to preserve the article's content even if it seems (at this point) that the subject is not notable. PJvanMill (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's more likely the article will be further improved in mainspace than in list space. Whether the subject is notable at this point is still a judgement call, so we should default to keeping the page for now. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SportingFlyer Keeping the page is not necessarily the default. The page has less than 1 kB of readable prose and has been that small since its creation, so WP:SIZERULE says it should be merged. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PJvanMill: SIZERULE says no such thing, it says that you can "consider" a merge. This is a classic case where someone meets a SNG but neither passes nor fails GNG. These are not clear keeps, but at AfD and DRV we do err on the side of keeping them. Again, it's the fact they pass a SNG which allows them to be kept - if someone does a local source search and the article can't be improved, that's when we tend to merge. (This is relatively rare, happens most often with historic Olympics articles for athletes from non-English speaking countries. We err on the side of notability where the GNG is grey.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Please re-read the closing statement of the AfD. The consensus was clear that this article fails GNG – a judgement that is indisputable given no-one even tried to refute such a statement. There is also very clear direction that articles such as these should be merged into lists. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@SportingFlyer Indeed, SIZERULE is a rule of thumb, and it does say "consider...". The thing is, you didn't seem to want to even consider it, you seemed to be saying that "in case of doubt, keep" is the rule: a judgement call, so we should default to keeping. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not considering it. This discussion comes up from time to time where an athlete from a non-English speaking country passes a SNG but we can't prove he passes GNG and we can't prove he fails GNG. Users feel strongly both ways. We typically default to not merging. Please trust I'm not pulling apples from imaginary trees here. SportingFlyer T·C 19:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support For me, notability is about only having an article if it is possible to make it good. At this point, I don't see how the article can ever become good, because the sources are almost worthless for writing an encyclopedic article. Merging into a list seems like a good alternative to deletion. PJvanMill (talk) 12:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• It is "possible to make it good." We need to do a more specific source search, though. SportingFlyer T·C 23:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Seems fanciful given nothing has been uncovered through the AfD or here, but should those sources miraculously appear, it can easily be un-merged. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 05:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Question, why the apparent obsession by some editors to do this to only this cricket blp? i have just randomly clicked on a cricketer's name (Jasper Fish) from the category "English cricketers of 1701 to 1786", that article is a grand total of 2 one line sentences with 2 references: 1) 1769 scorecard, and 2) Arthur Haygarth, Scores & Biographies, Volume 1 (1744–1826), Lillywhite, 1862. why aren't the above "supporters" also suggesting mergers for Fish and others like it? Coolabahapple (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Coolabahapple One thing at a time. Fish might need to be merged too, but that's another discussion, for another time. PJvanMill (talk) 13:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for pointing out Fish. I've formally proposed a merge there. I think I've proposed merges for maybe 10 articles over the last fortnight - and merged a handful more without proposing as they fall into the "we don't even know their forename" category. It really is a matter of time and finding the articles. The only reason I proposed the merge here is due to the AfD close, not because of an obsession with this article (trust me, there are many other articles I'm much more obsessed by...) Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• That's a question based on a false premise. I for one have been quietly advocating merging contentless microstubs for some time now, and it's not just this one. Reyk _YO! 13:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I like how 16 years' worth of work is being dismissed as "contentless microstubs". If you're willing to put 16 years of work in trying to add material to the project, then I will believe you are willing to help enhance knowledge, otherwise I will just assume you are hacking it down for exclusionism's sake. By destroying material you are essentially censoring knowledge. Which is... weird, for a supposedly comprehensive compendium of information... Heck, this article contains a whole bunch more than many other articles, and all the necessary material for such an article. I have written thousands of articles following pretty much the exact same pattern. I'd rather you destroyed them all rather than choosing ones at random. Why was the "merge" option never put forward in the discussion? Where were you all at the time? Bobo. 04:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Thank you for the ping, Blue Square Thing. As I see it, the article is a permanent stub which breaches WP:LENGTH but it was kept after the AFD and so a straight redirect would breach WP:PRESERVE. A merge is the obvious solution and the footnote you've already added to the list must satisfy PRESERVE – alternatively, the list could be transformed into a table with a notes column. I agree you should take the underlying SNG problem to the NSPORT forum as the sensible next step. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose: if a player meets notability guideline it’s better to keep the stub. There are many people at WP who expand stubs, who don’t create articles (it’s more time consuming and needs a bit more effort and knowledge). If stubs are redirected to list, we are sure the article will never be created. SportsOlympic (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no consensus that this meet notability guidelines (other than NCRIC & CRIN, which wider consensus has determined are too weak to be reliable guides for establishing notability). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 05:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose, although like User:Lugnuts, with whose comments I agree, I'm a fairly "Weak Oppose". I'm more comfortable with merging English cricketers where there is very little information back to the team lists because I assume, perhaps naively, that someone will at least have tried to source more information: I feel the same about Australian players. I'd be happier with this one being redirected if there was evidence from a Bengali or Hindi speaker that there are indeed no further sources. It seems to me that, if the SNG operates through a presumption of notability, then this kind of merger proposal is operating through a different kind of presumption: that no sources will be found in any language. Neither presumption is satisfactory, but my preference, in order to maintain the vision of the encyclopedia as, er, encyclopedic, would be to err on the side of inclusion, rather than exclusion. So keep looking and, better still, encourage others to start looking. Johnlp (talk) 18:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose Why just the one? Why add significantly more detail on the one cricketer while keeping the information on everyone else limited? Doesn't seem to make sense. And if we provide even the two-three paragraphs on everyone on this list, it will get incredibly unwieldy. Smartyllama (talk) 01:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are already several merge proposals of these dead-end stubs that can only be sourced from scorecard repositories as a practical and pragmatic solution for cases where notability is questionable (clear consensus outside of WP:CRIC is that NCRIC & CRIN are too weak to be reliable guides for establishing notability). As such, there will not be two-three paragraphs – just one or two short sentences at most. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 05:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - As I said on WT:CRIC, how many "no consensus" discussions do we need before we decide there is "no consensus"? How many people who contributed here contributed to the AfD? How many people who contributed here did not contribute to the AfD and now wish they had? Having a second conversation lead to the same lack of "consensus" should pretty much back up the original decision of "no consensus". My same comment applies to Sankar Bhattacharjee - as mentioned above - and frankly every single article that Lugnuts has created on a sporting biography. Y'all are strangely selective on what you do and don't flag for one reason or another... Bobo. 20:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support all we have on Banerjee is bare bones statistical tables. This is not the level of sourcing needed to justify a free standing article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support – if all we have for single appearance players are stats, then a redirect to a link/category is the most appropriate thing to do. However, we shouldn't do this as a rule of thumb for all single appearance players. Many, possibly even including Bannerjee, have lots of coverage in non-English language sources. Others, such as Milo Talbot, have notability beyond their one cricket appearance, which shouldn't be overlooked incase it has been missed and not included on their articles. StickyWicket (talk) 17:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• I agree entirely that this isn't in any way dependent on the number of appearances. That was never the intention. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Of course. That's not to say Milo Talbot couldn't also appear on a list of "Gentlemen of the South" players with his statistics listed and name bluelinked to his actual article. Reyk _YO! 20:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still maintain that I believe every first-class domestic cricket team should have a corresponding List of X cricketers. Matabeleland would be an example from Zimbabwe - and I'm assuming we would batch into that the players who played for Matabeleland Tuskers - essentially the same team, just with a franchise name added. Bobo. 21:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment - Why are we wasting our time on a merge discussion for a first-class player when there are dozens, dozens of Test players with "bare bones" articles which don't even have "References" sections? Why has nobody been working on those for the last 15 years instead? How is it that some still remain unsourced after over 15 years? 1 2... two, just from South Africa A-C. I can't be bothered to find the dozens of others. Interestingly User:Paul is behind many of those and he hasn't edited since March 2006 - just two months after putting these articles together - he created a total of around 900 Wikipedia articles over a period of barely nine months - a wonderful workload for so early on in the cricket Wikiproject. Are people prepared to work on these instead? Why is it people are more interested in destroying a project than enhancing it? Paul's contribs Bobo. 20:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Proposal for closure as no consensus I propose this discussion be closed here as no consensus. I strongly feel this discussion should be closed by an admin and not an ordinary contributor as it is highly contentious. Both sides make many good points. However, many of these points seem more a comment on the state of the guidelines than policy based per se. Subject notability guidelines are a shortcut for meeting the general notability guideline. Essentially, WP:NCRIC is an established norm that certain cricketers who have certain accomplishments (unambiguously) are generally notable. That aside there seem to be arguments that sometimes NCRIC isn't reaching the level of general notability. This is problematic. But, this debate is not a good place to have this discussion. The debate by its nature it only reflects the opinions of those who frequent AfD or were involved in this AfD and may not be broadly reflective of wikipedian's attitudes. It is also important to be mindful of the wikiprojects and avoid biting contributors who have an extensive knowledge of, and interest in a subtopic that may not be interesting to you. Consider perhaps, that they may have an overall benefit to the project and deleting their contributions or merging them may have an overall adverse effect on the project. Remember that this isn't a bureaucracy. Consider the broader reasons for the SNGs, one potential reason that these subject notability guidelines are helpful is that for disinterested parties it may be hard to assess relative achievements. For aficionados however, these are major and important achievements. Any consensus achieved here would therefore be on shaky ground and likely to generate ill-will. At the moment a lot of ink is being wasted on a debate about three particular cricketers when the real debate is on the subject guideline. I would also propose the other merge discussions are also speedy closed as no consensus as there isn't a chance either of those nominations will generate consensus. If you want to change the general policy you need to argue that, it's not a useful to argue this over multiple different discussions. Generate the broad community consensus and then implement it. PainProf (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• If you can arrange for an admin to pop along then fine. I was planning on closing the discussion tomorrow with a summary - the gist of which was to attempt to summarise the areas where I think there is a growing consensus. I would not have recommended merging the article at this time. Maybe I'll still write that summary, maybe I won't bother - but I'll wait for an admin to come along and formally close it now... Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are two further conversations below. Are we still continuing to argue about three different articles on three different cricketers chosen completely at random, when we all hold precisely the views we have expressed above? Every single conversation is just going to go the same as this one. If people had wished to suggest a merge at AfD, they would have done so instead of dragging random names through conversations like this. Nobody suggested this. Bobo. 23:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have done a request for closure, hopefully those will be closed as speedy as well. As per above, obviously this is not an effective way to discuss the mergers. PainProf (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just for clarity's sake should this comment be on the other posts as well? Bobo. 00:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barebone article Hatchens (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support- this person played few matches and no biographical information seems available. A merge seems the correct way forward. Reyk _YO! 08:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose This conversation is already taking place above - just with a different name. This is the most painfully non-consensus conversation I've ever seen. Focus on improving articles on Test cricketers before discussing less high-profile names. If you do this with this article you may as well do this with 50 percent of non-Test non-ODI Indian cricketers. I am still yet to be convinced that any biographical information beyond what is already there is anything but excessively flowery bumf and I challenge you to convince me otherwise. Bobo. 09:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support; Fails to meet GNG. Also, per WP:WHYN, there is entirely insufficient information to warrant a dedicated article and it should be merged into an appropriate list. This is that list. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - apparently merge conversations only take place over a single week. If a week is not long enough to prove consensus... and two weeks is not long enough to prove consensus... why are we still having these conversations? There is such a thing as "no consensus"... Bobo. 10:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment - having double-checked the (only) source again, and found another to verify, this guy doesn't actually seem to have played any first-class cricket, just a couple of T20s, so even fails the lowest of the low bars (NCRIC). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment - are T20 matches no longer considered "major cricket" anymore? CRIN specifies "..any senior domestic competition or match", and the Twenty20 article states they are recognized by the ICC as being at the "..highest... domestic level". Bobo. 10:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are mis-quoting/mis-representing. T20 maybe recognised as such, but the competition involving these two matches is not; it is a level below the IPL, so very obviously not "the highest international or domestic level". _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CA and CI - both are referenced, not just one or the other - both suggest that the individual meets CRIN. Bobo. 10:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Both CA and CI are indiscriminate data repositories; neither may be used for establishing notability. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not only that, there is good evidence that they crib off each other (repeating each other's typos even) so they cannot be regarded as independent. Reyk _YO! 10:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That can be tagged with as much of a "citation needed" stamp as it would if I were to say the opposite... Jack covered this years ago and I am too tired of these conversations to find said conversation... Bobo. 10:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose meets the notability requirements laid out at WP:NSPORT/NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CRIN doesn't actually explain which ones of these are at the highest level. Does this need further clarification so that people are aware of what does and doesn't qualify as "major cricket" or a "senior domestic competition or match" in each country's domestic competition(s)? Bobo. 10:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, that could help. Something along the lines of the stand-alone list the football project has for the fully professional leagues. In the meantime, I've added a few sources for this guy and the one below too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You raise a point there. Other sports' conversations. I have almost no doubt that if conversations of this nature were to happen on other Wikiprojects they would be slapped down in eighteen milliseconds, and, to be frank, their instigators topic-banned. What are we hiding from with regard to cricket? Where are other sports' rabid exclusionists? And do they base their conversations on anything other than IDONTLIKEIT? Bobo. 11:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes – multiple quoted (and linked) clauses from guidelines and policies that have wide community consensus (starting with WP:N). The onus is on those arguing against deletion/merger to do more than state compliance with sport SNGs. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

N clearly states GNG or SSG. And if CA and CI are insufficient, having had consensus from this project for all this time, then feel free to slap down every single article which only contains links to these. Or, y'know... put some work in yourself instead of destroying 16 years' worth of other people's at the touch of a button. I continue to challenge anyone to genuinely find consensus in said conversation. I remember thinking at the time how much of a mess that conversation was and I still question whether there was consensus. Herostratus' suggestion regarding "single-source" articles can be fixed right there and then by anyone who knows anything about cricket. Bobo. 12:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The above linked RFC negates any perceived SNG/GNG relationship in the case of sport, until and unless something changes (new RFC or rewrite of the sport SNG). Using CA/CI databases alone violates WP:NOT in multiple regards (NOTMIRROR, NOTWHOSWHO/NOTDIARY, NOTSTATS, etc.). Finally, consensus is based on (community supported) policy and guideline based arguments; it is not a headcount. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SNG and GNG? Why no reference to N? Why no reference to the one guideline we learn on our first day on the encyclopedia? If we could just stick to the basic guidelines we learn on our first day rather than exclusionism for the sake of exclusionism... Bobo. 12:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose speedy closure Per the above, for the sake of everyone's time, I propose speedy closure as no consensus. PainProf (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A barebone article Hatchens (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support- per my reasoning in the above two sections. Reyk _YO! 08:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose This conversation is already taking place above - just with a different name. This is the most painfully non-consensus conversation I've ever seen. Focus on improving articles on Test cricketers before discussing less high-profile names. If you do this with this article you may as well do this with 50 percent of non-Test non-ODI Indian cricketers. I am still yet to be convinced that any biographical information beyond what is already there is anything but excessively flowery bumf and I challenge you to convince me otherwise. Bobo. 09:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support; Fails to meet GNG. Also, per WP:WHYN, there is entirely insufficient information to warrant a dedicated article and it should be merged into an appropriate list. This is that list. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose meets the notability requirements laid out at WP:NSPORT/NCRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lugnuts, I mean this in the most lighthearted, friendly way possible. Link your article creation contributions to this conversation. Allow people to PROD every single article which fits only the "barebones" of people's expectations. Let them get bored of PRODding seventy-five thousand article creations based on the fact these only contain the "barebones" of information with no "necessary biographical information". Or whatever they want to call it. There's no more or less information on these articles than there is on the cricket articles. Tell me what the difference is between cricket articles and those people claim to contain the "barebones" of information... Well? Bobo. 11:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose speedy closure Per the above, for the sake of everyone's time, I propose speedy closure as no consensus. PainProf (talk) 00:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]