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 no consensus. As a policy point, an SNG is supposed to be an indication or rough rule of thumb that sources exist and that, where sources are shown not to exist then the SNG cannot trump the GNG in the case of a BLP. The strength of particular SNGs varies and, in the case of cricket, which has a massive printed documentation, Google isn't always the definer and members of the wikiproject can reliably be expected to flood any edge discussion with a slew of SNG based keep votes. However, the argument here is that we have an article passing an SNG but failing the GNG. The correct answer in such cases, and what we do elsewhere, where there is not sufficient individual documentation is to create lists to preserve the content until the sources are found. However, no one argued this in the discussion so it's not an option. The solution is for the cricket wikiproject to stand back from blind insistence on the SNG and start with the lists already but I guess there is as much chance of that as there is Stuart Broad getting a standing ovation from an Australian crowd. As I don't see any prospect of a policy compliant close sticking I'm going NC. SpartazHumbug!22:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Does not fail NSPORT - please justify why you feel he fails NSPORT if you can. He has made a single appearance in a first-class cricket match, and therefore passes CRIN. I realize U19 Test matches don't confer notability, but the fact that we are questioning the presence of first-class players who have also played in Youth Tests make me question why this is being put up for deletion. I wonder whether there is information which can be put in about his Youth Test appearance. Once again, if you have trouble with the sources, state this elsewhere in a way that means we don't have to take these to AfD every single time you discover them. There are hundreds of other articles exactly like this - why are you discovering this just now? Bobo.17:30, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, and a web search turns up nothing either. Zero sources means the topic outright fails WP:SPORTCRIT and WP:GNG, so it is not notable, and zero sources also mean the content violates the principle of verifiability (of course, it's different if sources are out there but not yet in the article). PJvanMill (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - sources have been added. Please in future could you go to the appropriate channels and request sources which you may consider "appropriate" be added before doing something as frivolous as sending to AfD? Or at the very least, familiarize yourself with the subject. Both of you appear to be relatively new to the project. Bobo.22:10, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, Both of you appear to be relatively new to the project is not an argument and would have better been left out. Your characterisation of the AfD process as frivolous also bothers me. Anyway, the three sources currently in the article are barely enough to make an infobox, not enough to write an actual article. This is not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and WP:SPORTCRIT. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 21:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I note below, 52 out of 67 pages just in Category:Bengal cricketers fit the criteria you listed in your justification. It would be much easier to take this issue to the appropriate channels before picking and choosing at random which articles upset. It makes me wonder how people come across it in the first place. Bobo.21:29, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of this discussion is to determine if this particular article should be on Wikipedia. The fact that there may be many similar articles does not affect this. Maybe some of those articles should be taken to AfD as well, maybe someone can expand some of them, it certainly sounds like there is a lot of work to be done. But that's a separate issue! We cannot keep this only because there are similar articles, we need to judge this article on its own merits. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe indeed. "Maybe" if you and others could find a way to improve this, and other, article(s) before these are sent to deletion, or find channels whereby it can be done with collaborative work, we wouldn't have to go through this every time. Bobo.22:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I get that it is frustrating to have your work nominated for deletion. And who knows, maybe you'll turn out to be right that this discussion will have the same result as could have been achieved by going to what you call the "appropriate channels". But... this discussion is here now and it won't go away. All you can do now is look for better sources, I'm afraid. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 22:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, if this had been done in the first place, this conversation would not be necessary. If your annoyance is with the specific sources, take this issue through the appropriate channels in order to find out whether other people can find further sources before deciding the article is unacceptable. Bobo.22:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've stated that enough times now. We get it. It's beside the point. Also, consider that if the "collaborative" route does not result in good sources being found, you still get an AfD in the end. I get that it sucks for you, but this is how it is. Please stop re-stating your point. Moderately annoyed regards from PJvanMill (talk) 23:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The sad thing about frivolously adding articles like this to deletion without actually taking it to appropriate channels before then, is that it doesn't give WP:CRIC members - and others - a chance to find this coverage in order to "improve" an article. It almost definitely exists, it's just that people who send articles for deletion are all too quick to press the "Send to AfD" button without first finding out whether people can find extra coverage. I suggest the user who sent this article to deletion who, once again I point out is suspiciously new to the project, go through channels where more information could possibly be found before sending these to AfD. Otherwise we would be sending thousands of non-English non-Test players for deletion. By my reckoning there are 52 pages out of 67, just in Bengal cricketers, just from letters A - C, which do not have supposedly "adequate" source material. Are we going to just send these all for deletion? And how does this assist the project? I'll be quiet now. Bobo.20:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let alone the fact that this article was sent to AfD on the basis of a lie, that the individual "does not pass NSPORT". It seems very strange to me that this only ever happens to articles I have created. Bobo.21:01, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After all this time I think we're bored of being told that... in the future when you or Hatchens wish to bring these to attention, instead of sending articles willy-nilly, completely at random, to AfD, could you please mark them for clean-up or bring them to the attention of interested users, or similar? Otherwise you will end up sending 52 articles to AfD just on a whim... The fact that the rationale given by the deleting user is a lie, is beside the point. The deleting user's rationale is that the article fails NSPORT - this is a lie. Bobo.16:08, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bobo What is the point you're trying to make? That something is boring does not make it untrue. Again, you seem to be complaining about the fact that this AfD exists, rather than trying to give an actual argument for this article's inclusion. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "complaining". I'm saying that the deletion rationale is incorrect that the individual fails NSPORT. I'm saying that there are 52 other articles exactly like this one, in this category, let alone the other hundreds of cricketing categories, which contain links to only CI or CA. How was this one come upon? By accident? If the people who are so keen to send something straight to deletion, would take these to the appropriate places to see if these articles could be further worked on, before doing anything else, we won't have to go through this another 51 times. Bobo.18:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes NCRIC despite nom's false assertions. As no valid reason has been given for deletion, this should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Smaryllama Here's a valid reason for deletion: there is no significant coverage, so the subject fails the GNG. This valid reason has actually been given twice: see John Pack Lambert's vote and my initial reply to Bobo's comment. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 17:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion rationale given by the user who sent this to AfD is incorrect. That is the whole point. PJ, Hatchens, if you wish to help enhance the encyclopedia, please do so. But don't start protesting when others have spent 16 years doing the same thing and are disappointed when their work is being chopped down at random, based on the lie told in the intro to this AfD. If an article needs more eyes on it, sending it to AfD is just about the silliest way to do it. Bobo.18:27, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've written a lot of text on this page, yet not a single meaningful contribution to the discussion. The fact that the nominator made the mistake of linking to NSPORT rather than SPORTCRIT is of exactly zero importance, as is every other objection you've raised. Annoyed regards from PJvanMill (talk) 18:46, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, that came out a bit harsh. Let me phrase it this way: this discussion is about whether this article should be included in Wikipedia. You are constantly trying to make it about something else. Annoyed regards from PJvanMill (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the history of people making decisions which go against subject-specific guidelines, people often forget what they were protesting about in the first place and suddenly change tack. When that protest is based on a terminological inexactitude (a mistruth), sometimes people have to go to a peculiar extent to cover their tracks. Bobo.19:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this relisting hinges on the sources, can people make their minds up one way or another whether we are consistent please? The thought of having to go through this for every single Ranji Trophy cricketer makes me sad. Don't claim to me that "consensus will change" between now and the time people randomly stumble upon the hundreds of other articles I've ever created precisely this template, and don't tell me I'm wrong for applying ALLORNOTHING when every single argument will be exactly like this because every single other article I've written is based on precisely the same template. It's been five days since anyone raised any kind of objection. Bobo.06:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Coolabahapple I've already refuted this rationale in my comment above. Could you explain why you think that NCRIC can save an article that does not pass the GNG? Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PJvanMill, you haven't refuted it, you have said why it doesn't matter. To you. To "refute" it means you would have to prove that the individual doesn't pass CRIN, which is untrue. I don't see the point in contributing to an incomplete project. Can you please try to enhance the encyclopedia rather than wanting to chop it down for the sake of it? Once again I point out that the deletion rationale is factually incorrect. Bobo.10:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I bring you back to my comment about those who try to follow arbitrary, rather than brightline, rules, and then randomly changing tack for no reason. Bobo.11:09, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In which case I will point out that WP:N absolutely contradicts this guideline which invalidates the guideline either way, thus nullifying both arguments. The fact is that N and GNG directly contradict each other as to whether SSG can be followed. Bobo.11:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the top of WP:N is a summary of everything that comes below it, including the WP:SNG guideline. Note that such a summary glosses over some of the finer details, such as what happens when a topic clearly fails the GNG but passes an SNG. The SNG guideline makes clear that an SNG is just a placeholder for the GNG. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to not have read what I just said. There is really no point in trying to talk to you, I should have stopped long ago. Disappointed regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:37, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- this is a stat dump masquerading as a biography. It contains no biographical information. Presenting match scorecards in this way only dilutes information unnecessarily. SNGs only provides a temporary, rebuttable presumption that sources probably exist. The sources themselves are actually necessary. ReykYO!12:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am always asking what further biographical information one expects to appear. Any biographical information beyond that which already exists is unnecessary bumf. Bobo.13:04, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; as is stands, it seems clear that the subject fails WP:N – zero significant coverage outside of the usual cricket stats sites which, as they contain records for almost everything, cannot be held up as an indicator of notability. Articles compiled exclusively from these sites tend to be as described above – "a stat dump masquerading as a biography" – which will almost always contravene WP:NOTSTATS. Finally, while playing the odd match here and there may be enough for NCRIC, it is a rather poor indicator of whether a subject will meet WP:GNG – the guideline is obviously overly inclusive, and as such should be largely disregarded at AfD (per consensus at this RfC). wjematherplease leave a message...10:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Delete votes are based on a misunderstanding of how SNG’s work. If you to delete the article, you must prove that he undisputededly fails GNG. This has not been done. Given the time in which this person played and the location they played in, a web search is clearly not sufficient for proving they do not pass GNG. He passes NCRIC, and he is therefore notable unless proven otherwise. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Devonian Wombat, your argument is incorrect and misleading. I doubt if Bobo or any of the article's other supporters would support your statement that GNG failure must be indisputably proven. The article itself must demonstrate the subject's notability and may be deleted if it fails to do so. You need to read and understand WP:BASIC within WP:BIO.
BASIC begins by asserting that people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources, etc., etc. In this article, the only sentence that provides any indication of notability is the last one which mentions his single match for Bengal (in a national competition?) and that is apparently enough for him to meet the cricket SNG but it is nowhere near enough for GNG because, in terms of BIO, the subject cannot be considered worthy of notice.
The two given sources are statistical although, to be fair, ESPN does often go further and provide a potted biography. The fact that ESPN's entry for Mr Banerjee is statistical only could even be a strong indicator of non-notability. I believe the other site, which I cannot access, is entirely statistical. There is, of course, WP:BEFORE in which point D1 requires a minimum search for sources using Google. I presume the nominator has done this but, if not, then I can confirm that the only finds in my Google search are, in effect, the two sources in the article (WP and its mirrors don't qualify). I was hopeful that the Times of India might have something but it turns out to be a montage of other people called Banerjee which is a common name.
I only visit AFD occasionally and drift into cricket topics if there is a shortage of football ones. My impression is that the cricket SNG is all over the place, certainly in comparison with WP:NFOOTY which is crystal clear. WP:NCRIC requires at least one match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. Sorry, but that is no use at all. First, what exactly is a substantial source; secondly, what is the definition of the sport's highest domestic level; thirdly, though it doesn't apply here, how do you define the highest international standard? I know someone who passes NCRIC (he meets GNG for his activities in another sphere) because he once played for the university team against a county team in an early season warm-up game that is, incredibly, rated first class. Surely NCRIC should follow NFOOTY and declare that the minimum for SNG is a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues? Even then, the subject must still meet GNG.
As this article stands, it is a construal of minor statistical data. As Wjemather, Reyk, Johnpacklambert and PJvanMill have all correctly asserted – there is a minimum of sources, a lack of in-depth coverage, no biographical information and a contravention of WP:NOTSTATS. The only conclusions to be drawn are that the article fails GNG by a distance and someone needs to align the cricket SNG with NFOOTY. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"GNG has to be met"? You say I wouldn't agree wtih that? As I've stated over and over again, N completely contradicts it. If we're using a flimsy "let's just do whatever we want" article with a guideline which completely contradicts another guideline, then I suggest random exclusionism is just exclusionism for exclusionism's sake. Bobo.08:29, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NGS, if that is the case then I politely suggest that most of my article creations are inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Like I said on WT:CRIC. Wanna get rid of 'em? Be my guest. As for CRIN matching NFOOTY, it does. Every team sport SNG is precisely the same. Why is it only cricket under attack? No wait... why is it only my articles under attack? If you disagree with what Cricinfo or Cricketarchive say, then, well, fair enough. Find evidence to disprove what they say. Want to expand it with ten pages of pointlessly extraneous biographical information about what they have for breakfast every day? Be my guest. My point, over and over again, is that all other biographical info is extraneous - and I challenge you, and others, to prove me otherwise. Nobody has yet convinced me. Bobo.08:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FOOTYN states: "Have played in a competitive fixture between two fully professional clubs in a domestic, Continental or Intercontinental club competition." Exactly the same. Bobo.08:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, that isn't the same. The key word is competitive. NCRIC is woolly and doesn't define the sport's highest domestic level. As it stands, friendly matches involving universities meet the criteria. Taking GB alone, surely NCRIC should be limited to test matches and county championship matches (and equivalent national one day competitions)? No Great Shaker (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The countries which acquired ICC Full Member status before the 1947 ICC first-class definition are Australia, British Isles, India, New Zealand, South Africa and the West Indies. British Isles essentially means England but it is complicated because it includes Wales and has, at times, included Scotland and all or part of Ireland. West Indies is a loose federation for cricketing purposes of various nations in the Caribbean area. South African domestic cricket extended to Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). There has been first-class domestic cricket in the British Isles since at least 1697. It is generally agreed that first-class domestic matches were first played 1851 in Australia; 1864 in India; 1864 in New Zealand; 1889 in South Africa; 1865 in the West Indies.
The countries which acquired ICC Full Member status after the 1947 ICC first-class definition are Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Afghanistan and Ireland. In theory, their first-class domestic cricket began when they were promoted but, in practice, it has tended to be when a suitable first-class domestic tournament could be organised. The dates of these were 1947 in Pakistan; 1988 in Sri Lanka; 1993 in Zimbabwe; 2000 in Bangladesh; 2017 in Afghanistan; 2017 in Ireland. Note that all of these countries staged first-class international matches in earlier years.
Senior domestic first-class competitions include the County Championship, the Ranji Trophy, the Sheffield Shield, etc. Senior domestic limited overs competitions include all List A matches and the Twenty20 Cup, Indian Premier League, etc. Senior individual matches (i.e., played outside organised competitions) are those shown to be important, especially if historically significant, by substantial secondary sources as outlined in Historical sources." Bobo.08:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting "History of cricket", the 1697 date refers to "..a "great match" played in Sussex in 1697 which was 11-a-side and played for high stakes of 50 guineas a side" - quoting a source by Tim McCann, although Cricket Archive notes 1772 as the first first-class match. Judging by the phrasing of that sentence, it doesn't appear to have changed since it was established, and it does sound like Jack's phrasing. Bobo.09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. This editor apparently wants us to prove a negative. That is completely backwards to how things actually work. "You need to prove there aren't any sources" is not an argument.
the other site, which I cannot access, is entirely statistical. There is good evidence that these statistical aggregators copy from each other extensively, making it difficult to regard them as independent for this purpose. ReykYO!08:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting and definitely implies collaboration or at least a shared access to primary sources which would suggest mutual assistance. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been a million years since Jack helped convince me otherwise and to locate so amongst eighteen million conversations is just a forlorn hope. Bobo.08:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bobo192, just trying here to encapsulate all of the above as I'm getting a bit lost. I returned to this page today because of the statement by Devonian Wombat which can't be right, and my point about NCRIC was secondary. I think I'll concede that rating of cricket matches is complex. The scope seems much wider than football. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passing one notability guideline is sufficient. The GNG is and was designed as a catch-all for when a subject-specific notability guideline was missed. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 17 June 2020 (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.