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. Kudos to the participants in the discussion for level headed comments. I wish all were like this. There seems to be sufficient reason to either keep or delete. That being the case there is no clear consensus as there is no clear policy issue involved. No consensus defaults to KEEP. JodyB talk 12:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Basanta Regmi

[edit]
Basanta Regmi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of the article is non-notable as he has not appeared in recognised first-class or List A cricket as required by WP:ATHLETE and WP:CRIN. He has represented his country, but not at the highest international level of the sport. Johnlp (talk) 19:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. But if you look at his stats here, he hasn't played any first-class or List A cricket. Had Nepal beaten Namibia in 2006, he would have done, but they didn't, so he didn't. I don't mind whether he stays or goes, but if he stays, the WP:CRIN criteria probably have to be amended. Johnlp (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No they don't need to be rewritten. The guidelines clearly state that a player needs to have "appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". I'd say that an official international is self evidently a major match. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:26, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that this player played at the Under-19 World Cup too! And for a team that actually beat South Africa and New Zealand in 2006. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If you look at the definition of major cricket then it's pretty plain that the matches played by Nepal don't qualify, so although there's no problem with the article about the team there is a problem with individuals whose only matches are in these minor matches. U-19 matches aren't major cricket either. Johnlp (talk) 08:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. From that page: "Major cricket is a term used in cricket to encompass all forms of the sport that are played at the highest International and domestic levels". It's not an official term anyway, but an official international is by definition amongst the highest international levels. I'd also like to point out that you yourself this week have voted to keep a player who played three first-class matches for someone's personal XI almost two centuries ago, but are now nominating for deletion someone who, as we speak, is playing their 37th official international in the last four years! Surely you see the ludicrousness of that? This is a major problem with the cricket project. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm now convinced by Johnlp's argument, so changed my opinion above.—MDCollins (talk) 12:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment above - this man has played 37 official internationals and can be referenced thoroughly. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not denying his record. What I am saying is that he hasn't so far played first-class or List A cricket which means he hasn't played major cricket as defined by external authorities, which is the basis of where we draw the line on notability of individuals for WP:Cricket. It may be that we should draw the line somewhere else, and I'm of course happy to accept consensus on that. But before we do that, we should be aware of what the consequences of that might be in terms of the cricketers who would then reasonably get articles; and, because we're not meant to be doing OR here, we should ground any decision to do this on some authority elsewhere, in the same way that the present distinction is grounded on custom, practice, ICC rulings, ACS definitions, Wisden etc etc. Johnlp (talk) 22:20, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Major cricket is NOT officially defined by any external authority! One thing that is defined by an external authority is what is and isn't an official international, which is done by the ICC. This player has played in 37 of them. What more do you need? Andrew nixon (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NB that what the ICC counts as "full internationals" are "international one-day cricket tournaments for national teams without Test/ODI status", open to affiliate countries etc. This player's matches are between countries in the "ICC World Cricket League Division Five. This doesn't pass WP:ATHLETE as being at the top level, even if it as far as this player can go for now. This would be similar to a footballer playing well down the football pyramid for a club for say Hucknall Town F.C. in the Northern League Premier having an article, at least 5 tiers down the pyramid from the equivalent Premier League/Football League top division status. The only difference is that this cricketer plays for a country not a domestic cup. WP:ATHLETE says "the highest professional level" - Division 5? don't think so. Amateur (usually considered to be the Olympics/World Championships? Again, I wouldn't have said so. Notability by depth of coverage? Could argue that here, but not for the countless others that this would set precedence for.—MDCollins (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask you the same question that John ignored above - does anyone seriously think that a player who played three first-class matches for someone's personal XI two centuries ago and for which we know practically nothing about is more notable than someone who is now playing his 38th international and for whom we can find numerous references? If the answer is yes, then there is a serious problem with WP:Cricket. These are official internationals! Yes, they're Division Five, but an international is an international. We don't say that a footballer isn't notable because he played for the Faroe Islands against Andorra. And also note that the basic biography notability is: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." Even if you think he doesn't meet WP:CRIN (which he does), then you have to concede that he easily meets WP:Bio and change your vote to keep. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Re:18th Century players - no, I'm not sure that they should either, but we aren't discussing them. By our current guidelines they do and I accept that. I am more than happy to have a fuller discussion on this at WT:CRIC regarding our guidelines (again!) but I don't think this is the best test case for it. I still stand that using WP:CRIN, this player doesn't fit; maybe that's a flaw, maybe it isn't. Does Nepal have a domestic structure, or is the "international team" basically the only county/domestic team? Also as I said, you have a good case for WP:BIO, but I'm not convinced by the "depth of coverage" yet.—MDCollins (talk) 10:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:CRIN:

The major cricket qualification includes any player or umpire who has appeared in a Test match since 1877; or in a limited overs international (including Twenty20 internationals) since 1971

This person has played at least ten times in Twenty20 internationals for his country according to The Cricket Archive.Hack (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

b. Are between:

i) Any teams participating in and as part of the ICC Twenty20 Championship; or
ii) Full Member Teams; or
iii) A Full Member Team and any of the Associate/Affiliate Member teams whose matches have been granted ODI status (i.e. the top 6 Associates/Affiliates).
iv) Matches between any of the Associate/Affiliate Member teams whose matches have been granted ODI status (i.e. the top 6 Associates/Affiliates).

Harrias (talk) 08:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion is that he passes WP:BIO, which requires that he be the subject of multiple, non-trivial references in reliable sources. I don't think there's evidence that he is. So, we're addressing the much lower bar of WP:ATHLETE, and trying to decide whether he passes it. --Dweller (talk) 14:13, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The (excellent) rewrite makes it very clear he fails WP:ATHLETE. He's clearly mentioned in a number of reliable sources, but in my opinion all but perhaps one are utterly trivial references, meaning he still fails WP:BIO. --Dweller (talk) 10:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There appears to be a lot of weight on the U19 performances; long-standing consensus is that U19 doesn't count as being at the highest level.—MDCollins (talk) 12:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't mean it can't be in the article. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Another comment: WP:CRIN states that, in order to be notable, a player must have "appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire". It then goes on to define major cricket as including "any player or umpire who has appeared in ... a limited overs international ... since 1971". At no point does it say that this limited overs international has to be a full ODI. So the questions are, 1) has this player played in an international? and, 2) was this international of the limited overs variety? The answer to both of these questions is yes, therefore he meets the major cricket qualification and therefore he meets WP:CRIN. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strawman alert, but according to that, if I and my cousins play a limited overs game against some American friends and declare it an "international", we're all notable? --Dweller (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well obviously not - but then your international wouldn't have been declared as official by the games governing body, as the subject of this articles internationals have been. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent - that's my point. As Harrias points out above, the internationals in question have not been designated by the ICC with full status. --Dweller (talk) 20:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that they have - see here, particularly the heading "Other Official Internationals" which quite clearly states that "any one day match between Associate/Affiliate international teams other than those already classified as ODIs" is an official international. The ACC Premier League and Intercontinental Cup play-off matches are probably not included under that ruling, and we could argue forever about whether the Twenty20 matches are "one-day matches" or not, but the 12 WCL matches and 11 ACC Trophy matches certainly fit that criteria. So we have a player who has played at least one officially sanctioned limited overs international since 1971 - please explain how that doesn't fit WP:CRIN? Andrew nixon (talk) 20:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well fought argument, and one I had seen coming. It's difficult to disagree with, semantically, you're spot on. But I wonder what would happen.. VM Kenny (Gibraltar), Michael Schwartz (Israel), Terrence Thomas (Turks and Caicos Islands) etc etc, all of these players indisputedly played in limited overs internationals, all in ICC competitions. A description that incidentally doesn't rule out Under-19, Under-17, Under-15 matches and so on. Surely the most sensible place to draw the line is Test, ODI, T20I, FC, ListA, Twenty20? Harrias (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that all those articles should be created - but don't forget WP:NOTPAPER. I also agree that youth internationals should not be included. Also, some first-class cricketers barely pass notability - Basanta Regmi is certainly much more notable than this guy based on the amount of information we have on him. Perhaps we can put a lower limit on how many internationals a player has to have played? Andrew nixon (talk) 21:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Having stirred up this hornet’s nest by nominating this article for deletion, I’ve deliberately kept away from the discussion in the past couple of days to see where it would go. Very early on, I wrote that “I don't mind whether he stays or goes, but if he stays, the WP:CRIN criteria probably have to be amended”. That’s still my view: no one disputes that we need to draw a line somewhere and to draw it clearly so that anyone (not just the cricket experts) writing a new article knows where they stand. In my view, the present line is clear and Regmi fails to reach it; if we change the line so Regmi does reach it, which is both feasible and reasonable, then so do the Gibraltarian/Turks & Caicos etc cricketers User:Harrias cites. You can’t draw a wobbly line: it’s one or the other.
What sways me a bit – and I’m happy to accept whatever consensus is reached – is that WP is not meant to be OR, and the two heavyweight databases that patrol this area, cricketarchive and cricinfo, both balk at aggregating these international matches into their player stats, even though they maintain scorecards for them. If they draw the line above these matches, then what authority do we have to draw it elsewhere without risking accusations of OR? I’m not swayed by comparisons with obscure first-class cricketers of a long time ago: of course there are more references to a present-day player than there are to James Rice (cricketer), but Rice certainly qualifies on the present placing of the line, and Regmi is less certain. (We have to guard against recentism too: Rice may well in his time have been one of the top cricketers in the world, and I don’t think anyone’s claiming that for Regmi at this stage.)
Someone a bit further back suggested this might be thrashed out better at WP:cricket. It’s precisely because we haven’t successfully done that in several discussions around these points in the past that I brought this here, hoping that people other than cricket contributors might get involved in a rather more public arena. Are there similar debates going on in other sports projects? Can anyone from them help resolve this one? Andrew’s right to say this is a major problem for WP:Cricket, but surely it’s not one that can’t be solved? Johnlp (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said above, I think he does meet WP:CRIN having played in a limited overs international, but as for "if we change the line so Regmi does reach it, which is both feasible and reasonable, then so do the Gibraltarian/Turks & Caicos etc cricketers User:Harrias cites. You can’t draw a wobbly line: it’s one or the other." - this was why I proposed a lower limit for those who have played in non-ODI limited overs internationals. What if someone had played over 50 times in non-ODI official limited overs internationals, like Hillel Awaskar has? I'm sure we can come to a lower limit agreeable to most. Andrew nixon (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cricketarchive says that ICC specifically ruled this match not to be first-class. CA tends to be more reliable than CI in these matters, and I think we can be pretty certain that if it says it's so, then indeed it is. Johnlp (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should amend WP:CRIC to include cricketers who have represented their nation in the World Cricket League tournaments. Possibly I'm being too inclusive and of course I'm forgetting about ICC Trophy matches. Meh... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2010 (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.
More