Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Cricket Project‑class

This page is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles

Project

This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject Cricket To-do list:

Article assessment

Check Category:Unassessed cricket articles for class and Category:Unknown-importance cricket articles for importance: see Assessment Department for details

Verifiability

Update fair and unfair play, fast bowling, first-class cricket, googly, innings, leg break, limited overs cricket, not out, Pakistan Cricket Board, spin bowling, underarm bowling, wicket, and other fundamental articles classified by the WikiProject as high-importance so that they meet WP:Verifiability policy standards

Cleanup

There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)

Infoboxes

Add infoboxes to the player articles found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/requested infoboxes

Cricket people

Create articles about 19th century players who are listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/19th century players
Create biographies about Bangladeshi players from the task force redlink list
Check the listing of key bios at Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Key biographies and improve these to at least B-class.
Create batting/bowling graphs for cricketers who have excelled in international cricket.
Create articles for redlinks present here and here

Cricket teams & countries

Domestic cricket coverage is needed for Bangladesh, Canada, Kenya, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Zimbabwe;
Create articles from redlinks and improve existing articles in List of current first-class cricket teams; National cricket teams; Under-19 national cricket teams
Create articles about cricket in these missing countries
Create or expand articles on international tours from items in Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/summary of international tour articles
Create a link as such on Template:Cr-Aus/doc for Cricket Australia XI

Images

Add pictures (and remove template from address requests) in these Category:Wikipedia requested images of cricket people
Add pictures for grounds missing photos from here

On this day in cricket

Expand the anniversary coverage for Portal:Cricket at Portal:Cricket/Anniversaries

Umpires

Expand ICC International umpire panel; ICC Elite referee panel; ICC Associates and Affiliates umpire panel

Women

Expand Women's cricket, Women's Test cricket and articles about women's cricket generally especially biographies and tours

Update

A number of lists need to be updated, can be found in Template:International cricketers and Template:National cricket captains
Regularly updating cricketers' career stats.

Other

Export all cricket terms present in List of cricket terms to Wiktionary

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94

This page has archives. Sections older than 14 days may be automatically archived by .

Domestic cricket

Hello Editors, I was wondering what would we created page just like International cricket in 2019 etc for Domestic cricket?. We can add A tours and domestic competitions in a single page just like International cricket in 2019. please share your views in this. Thanks. Aditya tamhankar (talk) 13:00 PM, 31 July 2019 (IST)

We use articles such as 2019 English cricket season. As far as I'm aware this hasn't been used for other countries yet, but it would translate easily. Harrias ^talk 08:06, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Lugnuts: what do u think about this project ? Aditya tamhankar (talk) 5:33 PM, 31 July 2019 (IST)

If someone is putting the work into it, and not just leaving an empty shell, then sure. It'll need restricting to just FC, LA and T20 competitions to avoid bloat (non of that T10 nonsense, for example...) Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:42, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good idea, though I agree with Lugnuts that it should be restricted to FC, LA and T20, which will restrict it to the 12 full members + Scotland and the Netherlands with the Euro T20. StickyWicket (talk) 23:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just for illustration how we have solved it in the german WP: We have added a table for the FC, LA, T20 domestic competitions for the full members to the international season articles: Example.--Maphry (talk) 10:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Garfield_Sobers#Requested_move_1_August_2019

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Garfield_Sobers#Requested_move_1_August_2019. DBig Xrayᗙ 11:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Run rate

The early part of answering this question at the Ref Desk led me to visit our article on Run rate.

It's really poor. Not my kind of article for fixing up, so thought I'd flag it here in case it takes someone's fancy. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:45, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarastro1 has done some good work in the past on more technical articles, like leg before wicket. Sadly, he hasn't been active since February. PS: Nice to see my photo from the Hants v Sussex 2009 Friends Provident Trophy Final being used! StickyWicket (talk) 13:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Surely Required run rate could also be merged into this article? And a section for Net run rate pointing at the NRR article along with a summary? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lather rinse repeat

"The CRIN guidelines are flawed". Come on then. How? It's ironic that when we have just expanded our inclusion criteria, people are now complaining about aspects of the inclusion criteria which have existed since 2004.

And not just "how". That is a useless argument. How do they need to be changed? Brightline suggestions only please. Why do I get the feeling these questions will get us nowhere..? Bobo . 07:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer is we don't! We probably have one of the clearest and easiest to understand guidelines going! Absolutely nothing wrong with a player having played in FC/LA/T20 to be notable. I think the opposition comes from not understanding crickets quirk in that its matches are a status based affair. I'm even wondering if the recent T20I status to associates should warrant inclusion too - even though the standard of most matches is shocking! It's frustrating that the same old people who bring this up are the same old people who have never contributed anything to the project. More ironic that one of them actually voted "keep" to a ground I nominated which hadn't hosted a single first-class match, yet was kept because it was once part of a park mentioned a couple of times in a Leeds newspaper back in 18-hundred-and-something! StickyWicket (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've already listed all the Mali women's national team players somewhere around..! I'm waiting for someone to suggest why we are wrong to have the inclusion criteria we do, when every single team sport project has identical criteria. If this were any other team sport project, the users in question would probably be topic-banned for disruption... Bobo . 09:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like someone to answer the question of why the sources we use are unacceptable. WP:ROUTINE does not hold as this applies to "routine news coverage" of such things as "announcements, sports, speculative coverage, and tabloid journalism". What we are citing is not news. Assuming WP:ROUTINE actually means anything in practical terms, this evidently only applies to currently-occurring events - hence the word "news". Bobo . 09:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've been rattling through the lesser-known teams like the Gentlemen of England or the armed services teams, where there's usually lots of book sources and what not. The core part of their cricket still comes down to CricketArchive, anytime that's questioned (like it's behind a paywall... not exactly our problem), I just say it's an authority in cricket info, which is it. It's no different from using a fan made football club stats site. I genuinely think it comes down to an ignorance of the status cricket matches carry - which if we are to be true to the topic we're covering, we too have to along with. StickyWicket (talk) 09:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you, like others with more information than myself, are bored of explaining why CA and CI are reliable sources... if people refuse to accept that, then they might as well delete every article which only cites these sources... Bobo . 10:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CA and CI are reliable sources, but that isn't the issue. Let's go through it. WP:N states: "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". Okay, so let's move onto the "subject-specific guideline", in this case WP:NSPORTS. It starts off: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." And in the following paragraph: "conversely, the meeting of any of these criteria does not mean that an article must' be kept. These are merely rules of thumb which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article".

This wording makes it clear that WP:NSPORTS, and by extension WP:CRIN is not a "bright-line" inclusion criteria, but instead a guide as to whether an article "is likely to meet the general notability guideline". So the fact that we can demonstrate an article meets WP:CRIN is a good start, but if further research doesn't reveal anything more, particularly for a relatively recent player such as Dean Dass, it does not in itself necessarily provide sufficient strength to keep an article. (Though, as mentioned it is a criteria " which some editors choose to keep in mind when deciding whether or not to keep an article". Harrias ^talk 10:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then there's no point in retaining any articles. Fine. If people are unable to stick to bright-line criteria then there's no point. Bobo . 12:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally I wonder how many of the cricket articles in the Asian languages - which I know existed at one point - which were deleted from en.wiki, still exist. I wonder if other languages' Wikipedias have inclusion criteria as contrary as these... Bobo . 12:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What about completly ditching the current wording of NCRIC and replacing it with "...only cricketers who've played in The Hundred are notable enough for an article on WP..." :D Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:41, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which brings me to a future conversation! What is the status of The Hundred? Is it, or can we treat it as, minor cricket? StickyWicket (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding is that it will have List A T20 status. Ie, exactly the same as the T20 Blast etc. Harrias ^talk 13:31, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can we express our disapproval of the whole thing by amending NCRIC so that anyone who plays in it is instantly non-notable? Spike 'em (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly ridiculous. List A T20 status, as the name implies, refers to matches of 20 overs per-side. The ECB make it up as they go along! If only we could refuse to acknowledge its existence. Hopefully it goes away after a season. Beyond the world of Mumsnet I've not spoken to anyone, cricket fan or otherwise, who likes the idea or is interested in it. I won't be watching the cringely named Southern Brave (I don't even know what makes them brave)! StickyWicket (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What needs to be added?

Okay, let me ask directly, here, instead of further clogging up the AfD or the previous topic. Theoretical situation: A cricketer has made a single List A appearance, and this is backed up by a statistical source. Someone finds this unacceptable and sends the article to AfD.

What do you expect further to be added? The cricketer's shoe size? Hair colour? How? Any further "in depth" information is irrelevant to the topic in question. Isn't it? Bobo . 10:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing. That's enough for WP:V. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:30, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought so too, but... Bobo . 10:31, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere on my "to-do" pages I've done a complete list of female first-class cricketers. Dare I suggest, without meaning to sound sexist, that barely any of these would pass some kind of wobbly POV guideline? Hey-ho... (Muahahaha, I made a funny!) Bobo . 10:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contact him for some additional coverage if you like. [1] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC) Wisden will have a match report for that C&G match --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:38, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankfully I don't twit... tweet... twet? I'm allergic to Katie Hopkins, Piers Morgan, and Donald Trump. Bobo . 10:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm waiting for people who belong to this project to send those seven Zimbabwean cricketers I mentioned in the AfD to AfD themselves... I doubt it though. Double standards, innit? Bobo . 10:43, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: Could you list them for me? Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Blue Square Thing: Seen this message. Gimme a few minutes. :) Bobo . 13:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A more comprehensive list of the articles which need fixing in some way or other:

Gavin Briant | Glen Bruk-Jackson | Gavin Ewing | Malcolm Jarvis (No links to CA or CI other than in infobox) | Alester Maregwede | Everton Matambanadzo | Richmond Mutumbami (needs bald CA link fixed) | Waddington Mwayenga | Ujesh Ranchod | Barney Rogers (no inline citations or external links) | Bryan Strang (no references, just external links) | Dirk Viljoen (no references, just an external link) | Andy Waller (no references, just three external links to random stories on Cricinfo) | Brighton Watambwa (no link to profile on Cricket Archive or Cricinfo) | Craig Wishart (no link to CA or CI other than in infobox). Make sure you get there before someone else sends them for deletion... Bobo . 13:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

They all clearly meet WP:GNG, so no danger of any of them being deleted. Most of them have enough detail in their profile on ESPNcricinfo alone, while most have additional articles provided more than just a passing mention. No drama here. Harrias ^talk 13:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How can people be certain they pass GNG with no references..? And with the greatest of respect, who are you trying to convince? You cannot convince me that GNG has any bearing on anything since I've conclusively shown the basic problem with it... Bobo . 13:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've conclusively shown nothing, other than that you disagree with it, and more broadly speaking, don't understand it. WP:N states very clearly: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.". So the fact that those articles aren't up to much doesn't change the fact that they are notable, and should any be nominated for deletion, that would very quickly be demonstrated. Harrias ^talk 14:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will repeat - how can you tell the articles pass any kind of notability without references? Please don't start misreading my comments because you find it funny... Bobo . 14:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because I clicked on every one of those articles you linked above, and then Googled them. Which is what anyone nominating an article for AfD should do, per WP:BEFORE. Harrias ^talk 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet people are whining about articles because they have insufficient linking within the articles? Please. It's one problem or the other, not both... Bobo . 14:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, where are people whining about that? Without context, I can't really comment on that issue, I am merely clarifying the notability guidelines. Harrias ^talk 14:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Okay, slightly slower. There are many Test cricketers without references. Why you're not linking those for deletion is beyond me. Bobo . 14:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe because WP:BEFORE checks have been carried out, and have demonstrated that sufficient sources exist to establish notability. Harrias ^talk 14:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And you're judging on the basis of the same material that non-Test cricketers are non-notable? Ultimate hypocrisy. Bobo . 14:22, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I judge each subject on its own merits. Google searches reveal significant coverage on each of those Zimbabweans that you listed; ESPNcricinfo hosted a lot of that coverage. In contrast, Mr Dean Dass, though a far better cricketer than I, attracted no significant coverage that I can see. He is listed in ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive's statistical databases, but neither has a profile providing any in-depth coverage of him. Additionally, there is brief passing mention of him in some news sources, but only that he played in certain matches. Again, not significant coverage. I fail to see the hypocrisy on dealing with each subject on its individual merits? Harrias ^talk 14:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Its own merits"? Wow. That's how badly this project is broken. Bobo . 14:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could put such pages either on a user page or on a project subpage? Preferably as a bulleted list? It would make working on them so much easier as this page is cleaned out regularly. Thanks. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:40, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I was putting them together on a notepad file. I'll be right there. :) Bobo . 14:45, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Baumgartner (needs link to CA)
Denis Begbie (needs links to any form of profile)
Jackie Botten (needs link to CI)
William Brann
Horace Chapman
Jim Christy (needs link to CA)
Eric Dalton (needs link to CI)
Alan Dawson (needs link to CA)
Fanie de Villiers (needs link to CA)
Friedel de Wet (needs link to CA)
Boeta Dippenaar (needs link to CA)
Allan Donald (needs link to CA)
Faf du Plessis (needs link to CA)
Jackie du Preez (needs link to CA)
Richard Dumbrill (needs link to CI)
Jacobus Duminy (needs link to CI)
JP Duminy (needs link to CA)
Dean Elgar (needs link to CA)
Howard Francis (needs link to CA)
Cyril Francois (needs link to CI)
Billy Frank (needs link to CI)
George Fullerton (needs link to CI)
Ken Funston (needs link to CI)
Robert Gleeson (needs link to CA and CI and general formatting fixes)
George Glover (needs link to CI)
Andrew Hall (needs link to CA)
Zubayr Hamza (needs link to CA)
Reginald Harris (links to CA and CI needed)
Martin Hanley (direct links to profile pages on CI and CA needed)
Paul Harris (needs CA link)
Tony Harris (needs general formatting fixes)
Nantie Hayward (needs link to CA and general formatting fixes)
Frank Hearne (needs link to CA)
Claude Henderson (needs links to CA and CI)
Andrew Hudson (needs link to CA)
Lee Irvine (needs formatting fixes)
Steven Jack
Clement Jackson (needs link to CA)
Justin Kemp (needs link to CA)
Imraan Khan (needs link to CA)
Peter Kirsten (needs link to CA)
Heino Kuhn (needs link to CA)
Adrian Kuiper (references need fixing)
Charl Langeveldt (needs link to CA)
Godfrey Lawrence (needs link to CA)
Gerhardus Liebenberg (needs link to CI profile)
Johnny Lindsay (needs link to CI)
Aiden Markram (needs link to CA)
Cuan McCarthy (needs link to CA)
Neil McKenzie (needs link to CA)
Ryan McLaren (needs link to CA)
Roy McLean (needs link to CA)
Brian McMillan (needs link to CA)
Charles Mills (needs link to CI)
Denys Morkel (needs link to CI)
Morne Morkel (needs link to CA)
Chris Morris (needs link to CA)
Wiaan Mulder (needs link to CA)
Anton Murray (needs clearer links to CA and CI)
Bob Newson (needs link to CI)
Mfuneko Ngam (needs link to CA)
Lungi Ngidi (needs link to CA)
Frank Nicholson
John Nicolson (needs link to CI)
Norman Norton (needs links to CA and CI)
Makhaya Ntini (needs link to CA)
Sid O'Linn (needs link to CA)
Duanne Olivier (needs link to CA)
Tuppy Owen-Smith (needs proper links to CA and CI)
Archibald Palm (needs link to CI)
George Parker (needs link to CI)
Dante Parkin
Wayne Parnell (needs link to CA)
Charles Pearse
Sid Pegler (needs link to CA)
Robin Peterson (needs link to CA)
Andile Phehlukwayo (needs link to CA)
Vernon Philander (needs link to CA)
Graeme Pollock (needs link to CA)
Shaun Pollock (needs link to CA)
Albert Powell
Dewald Pretorius (needs links to CI and CI)
Ashwell Prince (needs link to CA)
Charles Prince
Meyrick Pringle (needs link to CA)
Mike Procter (needs link to CA)
Henry Promnitz (needs link to CA)
Neville Quinn (needs link to CA)
Kagiso Rabada
Norman Reid (needs link to CA)
Jonty Rhodes (links need fixing)
Barry Richards (needs link to CA)
Dicky Richards (needs link to CI)
Dave Richardson (needs link to CA)
Jack Robertson (needs link to CI)
Albert Rose-Innes (needs links to CI and CA)
Thomas Routledge (needs links fixed)
Athol Rowan (needs link to CI)
Eric Rowan (needs link to CA)
Mark Rushmere
Brett Schultz (needs general link fixing)
Reggie Schwarz (needs links fixing)
Tabraiz Shamsi (needs link to CA)
George Shepstone
Percy Sherwell (needs links to CI and CA)
Charlie Smith Graeme Smith (needs CA and CI links checked)
Richard Snell (needs links checked)
Stanley Snooke
Tip Snooke (needs CA and CI links checked)
Dale Steyn (needs link to CA)
Rudi Steyn
Louis Stricker
Pieter Strydom (needs link to CA and general link fixing)
Pat Symcox (needs links to CA and CI)
Henry Taberer (links need fixing)
Imran Tahir (needs link to CA)
Bernard Tancred (needs links to CA and CI)
Louis Tancred (needs link to CA)
Vincent Tancred (needs links to CA and CI)
George Tapscott (needs link to CI)
Lionel Tapscott (needs link to CI)
David Terbrugge (needs links to CA and CI)
Nicolaas Theunissen (needs links to CA and CI)
John Traicos (needs link to CA)
Len Tuckett (needs link to CA)
Lindsay Tuckett (needs link to CA)
Edward van der Merwe (needs link to CI)
Martin van Jaarsveld (needs link to CA)
Hardus Viljoen (needs link to CA)
Ken Viljoen (needs link to CI)
Cyril Vincent (needs link to CI)
Charles Vintcent (needs links to CA and CI)
Bert Vogler (needs link to CA)
Billy Wade (needs link to CI)
Kenneth Walter
Kepler Wessels (needs link to CA)
Paul Winslow (needs links to CA and CI)
Owen Wynne (needs links to CI)
Billy Zulch (needs link to CA)

Thanks for providing this list. Don't you think it is better we spend time improving such existing articles on international cricketers, rather than waste time creating articles about obscure cricketers and then debating about their notability? The number of pageviews on these obscure cricketers articles (See 1 and 2) also shows that it may not be worth the effort working on such articles. I'm willing to work on as many Indian Test cricketers as I can. Would be great if others could take some other team's list and bring all articles up to snuff. Dee 03 15:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*grins ironically* Well, ever since I've been painted as some kind of arch-inclusionist, not really..! Bobo . 15:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As for other teams' lists, I would, but, I'm tired! ;) Respect, my friend. Bobo . 15:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm too tired to be comprehensive right now, but the following Sri Lankan Test cricketers have no links to either CA or CI - in fact some have no links at all:

Bandula Warnapura
Guy de Alwis
Susil Fernando
Sridharan Jeganathan
Jayantha Amerasinghe
Sanath Kaluperuma
Sanjeewa Weerasinghe
Jayananda Warnaweera
Kosala Kuruppuarachchi
Champaka Ramanayake
Dammika Ranatunga
Charith Senanayake
Kapila Wijegunawardene
Dulip Liyanage
Ashley de Silva
Ruwan Kalpage
Piyal Wijetunge
Dulip Samaraweera
Ravindra Pushpakumara
Sanjeeva Ranatunga
Chamara Dunusinghe
Jayantha Silva
Sajeewa de Silva
Suresh Perera (no direct links as far as I can tell)
Ruchira Perera
Indika de Saram
Prasanna Jayawardene
Dinuka Hettiarachchi
Michael Vandort
Sujeewa de Silva
Naveed Nawaz (need to fix links to CA and CI)
Hasantha Fernando
Prabath Nissanka
Thilan Thushara (no direct links to CA or CI profile)
Lasith Malinga
Shantha Kalavitigoda
Kosala Kulasekara
Dimuth Karunaratne (no direct link to CA or CI)
Milinda Siriwardana (no direct link to CA or CI)
Danushka Gunathilaka (no direct links to CA or CI)

I'm not convinced that articles need a link to either CA or CI. Certainly we can'y external link to CA so Aiden Markram, for example, doesn't need to be on anyone's urgent attention list - it already has plenty of references. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least it will stop people frivolously sending articles for deletion beca... oh... Bobo . 18:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've found the general lists of Zimbabwean internationals as well so I'll start doing what I did this morning to Shaun Young. If other people get there first then obviously that'll help. Thanks again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's Cricinfo's take on that match. No report of course. He did well with the gloves. Shame he seems not to have appeared in the next round. [2] --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I like the concept that a wicket keeper "did nothing" during a match. I'm sure he landed on his bum a few times. Bobo . 10:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find it frustrating because this sould be a complete resource for FC/LA/T20 cricket and those who have played at that level. I'm working toward getting every English (and every person to have played for an English domestic side) FC/LA/T20 cricketer with articles, irrespective of the amount of appearances. The only exception is articles like 'A. Smith, one FC in 1798' which I redirect to an appropriate list/category. The end aim is to create the only numerical source on the net for the number of people who have played at that level and a complete number for domestic teams. Articles getting deleted really sh*ts on that aim! We should be aiming to be the premier cricket resource on the web, not saying A doesn't get an article, but B does. StickyWicket (talk) 11:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When bored exclusionists get their way... I would like to hear their take on why they think we as a project don't want to be a comprehensive resource... Bobo . 13:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harrias: - well..? Bobo . 14:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Succinctly, the internet does not need a third place in which to find out that a cricketer played X matches for Y team and scored A runs, took B wickets and C catches. Literally, it is completely superfluous: ESPNcricinfo and CricketArchive already provide that resource. If we can not provide any more detail than the bare statistics provided by those sites, I would far, far rather that we use our time and effort to write prosaic articles about other cricketers, about whom we can find more information, and we can provide a good, quality encyclopaedic article about that subject. Harrias ^talk 14:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For many people, especially people who don't worry about the minutiae of the sport, Wikipedia is their first and only port of call. Bobo . 14:52, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's pathetic really, to think that the fifth most-visited site on the Internet is the first place people want to go when they want to find something out... Bobo . 14:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. I would suggest that Google is most people's first port of call. You know, the first most-visited site on the internet. Harrias

^talk 14:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just missing my point for the sake of missing my point. Why would we not want to have a fully comprehensive resource? Bobo . 14:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would love to have a fully comprehensive resource of well-written profiles for every cricketer. I would go beyond our current criteria, and include every international player through all associate and affiliate levels too. But given there simply isn't the time and resource for that, I would settle for a non-comprehensive resource of well-written profiles for as many cricketers as we can. Harrias ^talk 15:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then you, my friend, are nothing but a hypocrite. An article being deleted because it is "poorly written"? I'd say that with the information from the secondary sources given, the stubs which exist on Wikipedia are about the best we can get with the information we have in front of us. Bobo . 15:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. I am not suggesting that articles should be deleted for being poorly written. As I quoted above, that is directly against our notability guidelines. I merely answered your question, as to why I don't feel it is necessary for us to provide a comprehensive resource, if that resource is going to do nothing more than mirror the statistical summaries provided elsewhere, and fail to meet the requirement of significant coverage that WP:N requires. Harrias ^talk 15:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sending Dean Dass to AfD when he has made List A appearances is "directly against our notability guidelines" too... Bobo . 15:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Really?! Harrias ^talk 15:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have you never read WP:CRIN? Bobo . 15:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[3] Harrias ^talk 15:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N. And that is what this whole nonsense is about. The two basic notability guidelines completely contradict each other, each rendering the other completely worthless. Bobo . 15:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, they don't. Harrias ^talk 15:34, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One says "and", one says "or". Bobo . 15:37, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Given the information and facts that we had available at the time, would you say this was "poorly written"? What more or less would you have said that wouldn't have been completely superfluous? Bobo . 15:13, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not shy of linking: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dean_Dass --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dee03: @Harrias: Please can I re-ask you the same question I asked at the top of this very thread? Otherwise it looks as though you don't have answers. Since it's you two who seem to think there is a fundamental problem here... A cricketer has made a single List A appearance, and there is only enough information to write about that. You two seem to think that this is not a suitable enough amount of material for an article. Number a, Surely any further information is superfluous? Number b, What other information do you wish to see on the article? The cricketer's shoe size? Favourite variety of cheese? Pets? Bobo . 21:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

[4]. Harrias ^talk 07:14, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't create an article for that cricketer unless I find newspaper sources that provide "significant in-depth coverage" about his career or him personally (it could be his personal life or how he got into cricket or his post-retirement career). In case a cricketer has made a single List A appearance it is unlikely that newspapers would have anything beyond a passing mention of him. So if no detail can be added about him other than that List A appearance, it is best that he be covered in a "list of XYZ cricketers" instead of a standalone article. The closest examples to this among articles created by me would be Sanath Kumar, who appeared in 11 FC and 4 LA matches but had an extensive post-playing coaching career which has been covered in dozens of sources, and Balu Alaganan, who appeared in just 6 FC matches in which he captained his team to a Ranji title (wow) and then had an illustrious career as a commentator and administrator. Both Kumar and Alaganan have enough "in-depth coverage" to warrant standalone articles unlike the cricketer currently at AfD. Dee 03 07:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All completely superfluous information. What's the point? Bobo . 09:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What is superfluous? Kumar is known more as a coach than as a former player while Alaganan is remembered mainly for his commentary. This is evident by the number of sources discussing the so-called "superfluous" things. Dee 03 10:34, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion policy

Since 2003, when Martin Harper first added it to Project:Deletion policy (and in fact for some time before that) deletion policy has been that we do not have articles that are impossible to expand beyond stubs. (I retained the old structure of the policy from those years at User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#What to do.) A biography where there is nothing verifiable to say about the biographical subject beyond one line on a scorecard is exactly that sort of impossible-to-expand permanent substub article. Not everything in Wikipedia should be presented in the form of a biography. (My little green box has been copied at Wikipedia:Not every story/event/disaster needs a biography.) This goes for scorecards, too. It is ludicrous to take a scorecard and split it out into multiple separate biographies of the otherwise unidentifiable people on it. This is not serving readers. Readers cannot even travel to these pages from, say, 1950-51 Ranji Trophy. This is serving a wrongheaded need to hammer everything out of shape until it fits into a biography. Uncle G (talk) 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a wise man once said, "I disagree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it". I don't see how we can be the complete sum of all human knowledge when we are selectively deleting things based on fuzzy criteria. Bobo . 18:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is beyond a joke now

Just delete every Indian cricketer on my old user page. Get rid of years and years of hard work. What's the point of having an encyclopedia which selectively deletes information? Bobo . 09:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why on Earth did you decide to write up a scorecard as a series of many separate biographies of each, otherwise unidentifiable, person on the scorecard in the first place? It would surely have been more sensible to write up the scorecard as a scorecard. Uncle G (talk) 18:03, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which scorecard are you referring to? I wasn't writing any "scorecard", I was outlining each cricketer's career, just as anyone would Brian Lara, Donald Bradman, etc, etc. Any material other than information about their playing career is pointless. What else should I have written about - their favourite video game? Bobo . 18:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And my point stands. If we're selectively deleting information, we have lost sight of what we are trying to achieve. Bobo . 18:39, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

T10 Leagues

What's our position on these Mickey Mouse leagues? There's the T10 League, based in the UAE, and there's the Qatar Premier T10 Cricket League. There seems to be some justification to assert their notability by saying they are approved by the ICC - they are however still under the bracket of minor cricket and in the case of Qatar, based in an associate well down the global rankings. StickyWicket (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The original T10 League clearly has enough coverage to support an article, though I don't think there is currently enough for the teams or the individual seasons. I don't currently see enough for the Qatar League; especially seeing how some of these leagues have gone in the past, it might not even happen. I'd lean towards a delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Harrias ^talk 15:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I'll get round to AfDing the Qatar one at some point! StickyWicket (talk) 08:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lists of Indian cricketers

What purpose are List of X cricketers serving if they are not comprehensive? I don't mean "ones that have had articles deleted". I mean "ones that only have some articles from those teams but not others". The full list of lists I'm referring to is at Template:Lists of Indian cricketers. Do these need looking at as well? Bobo . 22:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think sadly it comes down to the Anglo-centric nature of this project. English, Irish, Australian and New Zealand cricket is pretty much where all the article creation effort goes/has gone. I can't think of a single user who does anything on expanding coverage of Indian cricketers and cricket teams. StickyWicket (talk) 08:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I question whether the lists serve any purpose if the lists are incomplete - regardless of whether the articles are still there. Bobo . 09:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobo192: I think they serve a purpose, although I would rather see them worked on to be at least a little more complete. That just takes time and having a list there means that someone might take it on. Fwiw, the English lists from List of English cricketers (1841–1850) to the, rather odd, 1861–1863 one could use work - I've done the ones up to 1840, although 1826 to 1840 needs to be double checked against every scorecard to check there aren't any omissions or inclusions that shouldn't be there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would take it on, but... you know. *shrugs* Just feeling a wee bit demoralized right now. It was a much easier task back in Presto-engine Opera days... Bobo . 12:02, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's still downloadable you know :-) I might get to one of them at some point - as much as anything, to see how viable the process is - but there are just so many other things I need to be doing just now... Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article for man of the match awards received by a player

Do we need this type of articles? No other player have this type of article. we should add them to their main articles. Also their main article isn't big that we need to split. Someone please take a look and if necessary request for AfD or merge. Thanks. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know we've had similar ones sent to AfD in the past, however, the only one I can find right now is this one. I'm 99% sure there have been others. I'll try and dig them out tomorrow. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fan of these. They're pretty unnecessary. StickyWicket (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't add them to their main articles either - not without very clear context being added to the tables. Otherwise you end up with a whole mass of statistical detail being thrown onto pages which people skip over and generally encourages people not to write prose. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Being a man of a match is a good achievement, yes, but not statistically significant at all. Every match has one. Not to mention, as comprehensive as Cricinfo's Statsguru tool is, I've never seen an option in it to search for "Man of the Match" winners. – Pee Jay 10:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've found this previous AfD (which I started!), where the result was redirect the lists to the players' article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CfD

Hi all. Please see the CfD for Category:Lisburn cricketer and Category:Instonians cricketers. Thanks. StickyWicket (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]