User:AssociateAffiliate/sandbox8.1

G. Bull

I've managed to find out that Bull came from Andover in Hampshire and was a fast-bowler. Considering he played for the club during a quite tumultuous period of its history (losing many players to active service in the Second Boer War) and finishing poorly for about 6 seasons in the County Championship, then perhaps enough sources can be mustered together in a similar fashion to the unknown baseball guy. Would somebody with British Newspaper Archive access be able to check if there is a first name amongst these reports please? StickyWicket (talk) 10:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Not that I can tell. There isn't any detail of him beyond what you see in the snippets. Interestingly though, he was the sub fielder for Yorkshire (due to late arrivals) and took the catch to dismiss Charles Robson (his Hampshire skipper) in the second over of the match [1]. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Going outside of your search, I found this: "Playing at Newbury on Saturday last for Andover, his native club, George Bull (who is this year for the first time on the County Ground staff at Southampton, and who was tried for Hants against Yorkshire at Hull)...". I've added it to the article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It also seems he didn't play in his second match until the final day, as Hampshire eventually found someone to make up the numbers having played with ten men for the first two days; so wasn't "absent hurt" as indicated by CricketArchive. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:30, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. A sub-fielder for players who were late arriving for a home game?! Don't suppose that'd have gone down well with the Yorkshire committee of the time! I wonder if George Bull the cricketer was also George Bull the footballer mentioned in this article as an Andover player in 1905? Were there any indications why Hampshire played with ten men for two days? I'm wondering if Bull had to travel from Hampshire to take part on the third day? StickyWicket (talk) 12:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

No indication as to why (still looking), but it seems the "extremely weak" Hants team began the Essex match with only nine men ("began fielding with two substitutes"). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:04, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

In Wisden 1901, he isn't "absent hurt" against Essex, just "absent" for the first innings. He also didn't bowl in Essex's first innings when nine of the 10 other Hampshire players did; in his earlier match against Yorkshire, Hampshire used 10 bowlers, with Bull as first change (though given only six overs). Johnlp (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Think I've exhausted my options for searching BNA. There doesn't seem to be any reason suggested in the papers for Hants failure to start with 11, or why they only had 10 until the final day, but they do heavily criticize the Hampshire committee and note that several leading players were missing (but again, no reason why). Nothing with regards to the football either. BTW, CricketArchive has been updated now. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 20:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Could well have been due to the Boer War, their two most famous players from that short period, Robert Poore and Teddy Wynyard, were both military personnel. Wynyard only batted in 5 innings that season and George Raikes another reasonable player from that period, just 6. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Ledger Hill, George Raikes, Leslie Gay, Edward Sprot, and Wynyard are those noted as "prominent absentees", all having played the previous week against Yorkshire. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Poore and Wynyard were certainly involved in military duties at the time, Poore was in South Africa at the time. Wynyard was an instructor at Sandhurst so probably could only play when not on army duty. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 21:29, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Looks like Wynyard played for Monmouthshire against Devon ([2]). Gay and Sprot had also played against Sussex immediately prior to the Essex match ([3]). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 21:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Makes me think internal politics led to many players perhaps refusing to play in that match, hence the shortage. Thanks for taking a look, I'll try and find out more about him, hoping a football archive might shed some light on if the footballing George Bull is one and the same. StickyWicket (talk) 10:44, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Quite possibly. If it helps, it seems he was living in Hatherden, near Andover, around that time; and there is also a Robert George Bull (farmer), presumably his father. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:30, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Here's some OR for this chap. He appears to be Robert George Bull (the same name as his father), but is shown as George Bull in the 1881 and 1911 censuses, and as Robert George Bull in the 1891 and 1901 censuses. In a newspaper report of 1905 mentioning both father and son, they are identified as "Robert George Bull" and "George Bull". He was born 12 August 1875 at Lickhill Farm, Calne, Wiltshire: his mother came from Calne and his father was originally from Sutton Benger nearby; an 1875 Wiltshire directory has them as the farmers at Lickhill Farm, Calne, and they were still there in the 1881 census. By 1891, the family had moved to Manston, North Dorset, where Robert senior was a farm bailiff, but by 1901 they were in Andover, where they remained as farmers at Hatherden. In 1901, our man was a "farmer's son"; by 1911 he was a "maltster worker" in Andover; in the 1939 war-time register of non-combatants, he was a bus driver. He died in the fourth quarter of 1940 in the area covered by the Andover registration district. He got married in Andover in 1894 at the age of 19 to a woman, Frances Elizabeth Steele, 13 years his senior: they had one daughter, also named Frances; his wife outlived him by eight years. Email me if you want the various references for all of this. Johnlp (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this Johnlp and the initial digging on the Haterden link Wjemather. It's great that a previously mostly unknown cricketer now has a firm identity, date and place of birth, occupation, and a liking for older women!!! Brilliant stuff! StickyWicket (talk) 09:57, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia Library partner suggestion

Hi all. I've suggested here that Cricket Archive be added as a partner. A few upvotes appreciated! StickyWicket (talk) 11:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

It was already there, wasn't it? The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

User:Lugnuts at ANI

Lugnuts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a member of this project known for their factory-style stub creations, has been reported at ANI mainly due to their cricket articles creation using a single database source (cricinfo). Anyone interested to share their viewpoint may do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Lugnuts creating poorly sourced cricket stubs. Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Wow, that ANI is a joke. Especially in light of the FA from the other day. StickyWicket (talk) 17:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm sure this will help boost relations here (I know you didn't start this one Storm). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I don't know Lugnuts for "factory-style stub creations", I know them for being a great and positive contributor to Wikipedia with a sense of humour. Perhaps think twice before already trying to bias the discussion Störm. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 12:28, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Like everyone who has been editing here for a long time, we have been co-operating with each other with the aim to produce a "complete" project. What does that say of those who wish to stop this from happening? What are their motives? You have to wonder. Bobo. 12:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Precisely. I mean I criticise JPL and it gets removed as a personal attack. Despite said criticisms having been raised at ANI before. Odd. StickyWicket (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I might annoy people, and my humour isn't always appreciated (or understood) by all, but one thing you can say is that I am here to build an encyclopedia. Too bad this shit-stiring/forum shopping backfired. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Half an idea

Instead of all the infighting which is going on here right now, why don't we work on cricket coverage on the Simple English Wikipedia instead. There are currently 37 articles for English cricketers on the Simple English Wikipedia, 24 of whom are/were male Test cricketers. Let's run to the (theoretical) assumption that every first-class cricketer is notable. Bear with me. The first 3000 or so articles will be easy to pick off. We'll just work on Test cricketer articles. There are so many people like myself who are English first-language speakers who struggle with language comprehension. Wham the articles down to a manageable level in terms of bodyspace content. That way, anyone who is interested in cricket who maybe finds it hard to understand screeds worth of text, can just work to more simple, "here-are-the-facts" style of article(s). Of course, the facts will still be there. But presented in a more manageable style, without run-on sentences and/or silly justifications of nonsense chaff that give second-language speakers headaches beyond all knowledge.

Keep in mind the Simple English Wikipedia isn't just for children or second-language speakers. I have many friends with acquired brain injury who struggle with linguistic comprehension. This does not make the project "patronizing" or beneath one's level - nor does it need to be. Bobo. 07:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't like to help out but the only problem is the fact that I would struggle writing in Simple English. HawkAussie (talk) 09:02, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I was just trying to think of another way of channelling our energies. Bobo. 09:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We've made too many compromises already; too many retreats. They mass nominate articles and we fall back. They claim to compromise but go back on that compromise and we fall back. The line must be drawn here! Retreating to the Simple English Wiki will only give them more ground. StickyWicket (talk) 10:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

It's a shame that it has become an "us and them" attitude. Us who have been here for long enough to continue to work collaboratively, and those who have popped up out of nowhere thinking they are helping the project by deleting content while refusing to add content.. How much of their concept of "compromise" is "we'll come along after 15 years and pretend we know everything". If they did know everything, they would contribute positively. Bobo. 12:15, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this is a realistic suggestion. More of a side-project for when we haven't got enough to do around here. Which is not the case at present. Johnlp (talk) 12:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We're running out of impetus to contribute here. We have a lot to do, it's just that we're being blocked from doing so by those who have no interest in doing so themselves. Bobo. 12:20, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

My main reason for suggesting this was to point out the fact that, putting information about a cricketer's career within six pages of text is basically creating so much unreadable waffle that the same people would complain anyway...By contributing just the facts, we are presenting this information in a neutral, organized style. There's nothing wrong with cookie-cutter articles. It's just that those who come across them protest because they know they have nothing to add to them. Bobo. 12:40, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

• I know in the past list articles were frowned upon by non-project members when suggested in the past by project members, but it would save a lot of articles being completely deleted now if we had a more complete set of lists for current sides. There's no list currently as far as I can work out for any of the Sri Lankan sides and basically all Sri Lankan cricketers at AfD are being deleted (although I personally believe there's offline sources for them somewhere that aren't being found). Lists can at least allow some statistically history for some of those players who perhaps only played a handful of games to survive in some form. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:48, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Now this!

So here we have an international cricketer who was up here for deletion. Quite clearly a no consensus, overall, though edged by keep: 6 keep, 4 delete. The article was sourced (contrary to what the deletion reason will state), the subject played for a national cricket team, yet gets deleted by the closer citing: "The result was delete. Per SIGCOV. No sources, no article...". Think you'll find that was a no consensus. What a joke. StickyWicket (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Deletion review here. StickyWicket (talk) 20:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this and logging the deletion review. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:24, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Prem Bhatia (Gujarat cricketer)

Hi guys, this cricketer has gone to AfD this morning (see here) as he's only played 1 FC match and no coverage, however CricketArchive are stating that he's the same cricketer as Prem Bhatia (Delhi cricketer). This may well be the case as his Gujarat appearance was only a couple of years after his 55 Delhi appearances, and there are no DoB/DoD dates on the Gujarat cricketer, although Cricinfo has separate profiles for them. Personally I think they're the same person and have voted merge, but would someone be willing to do some research to confirm/deny it. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:05, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Seems very likely they're the same player. Though it's not infallible, CricketArchive (with its links to the ACS) does tend to be better on past cricket than Cricinfo, which is more of a recent news resource. Johnlp (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

That was my view too, there's significant coverage of him anyway as apparently he was a regular 12th man for India, with lots of coverage of his passing a few years ago. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:30, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

South Africa franchise team templates at TfD

Hi. Please see this discussion at TfD now that CSA has abolished their domestic franchise setup. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

MOS:YEARRANGE

I left a message at Talk:2019–21 ICC World Test Championship. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 15:14, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Virat Kohli's cap number

Please see this discussion. Is it 268 or 269? Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately Cricinfo cap numbers (i.e. the order in which a player appeared for a given team in a given format) are not always "correct". Certainly for smaller nations, CI use a logical alphabetical order (although sometimes inconsistently with instances of some players ordered by surname and others by full name, usually Muslim players). Some associate nations use their own numbers that cross all formats, and from before their matches were ICC recognised. For England, CI does not include Alan Jones as cap 696 (he played a Test in 1970 which later lost its status; England later officially gave him cap number 696, but CI gives this to Dan Lawrence). We explained that discrepancy with a reference from UK newspapers). In the case of Kohli, I can't see why CI logic isn't right (alphabetically speaking)... I guess India didn't follow the usual pattern on this occassion. Problem is that we can't go against the source without some kind of report to refer to. Bs1jac (talk) 16:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Have asked Cricinfo if they can fix their list as it does appear to be a simple case of two players debuting on the same day and not given the numbers actually worn on the shirts Bs1jac (talk) 18:39, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Potential way forward for NCRIC

Hi guys, many of you will be aware there's a discussion going on at NSPORT over SNG and changing them. Cricket has been mentioned a lot, and as with previous discussions it seems that many feel it needs updating, although there's never been any real consensus on what to change. One potential idea I had was to create a list of notable domestic competitions that playing one game in would likely lead to presumed notability (the presumption that the article would pass GNG). The current list at WP:OFFCRIC (which is not clear and difficult to find) just lists all current FC/List-A/T20 competitions and some but not all historic competitions. This would be similar to what football and rugby union use for domestic notability then. I have started a potential list here with the competitions I feel would lead to presume notability (it is no way near final and likely needs tidying up).

The two real questions I want to ask are. 1.) Is this change to NCRIC something those on the project would be willing to accept to help try and improve NCRIC which many feel to be too inclusive (as shown by AfD nominations)? and 2.) How do people feel about the list I've created and what competitions need to be added/removed and what dates from when presumed notability begins/ends need changing?

Those are the only two things I'm interested in here. It's not to discuss any other potential options, just this one, or not changing anything at all or just general discussion. This only related to Male domestic cricket also, with no potential changes here to NCRIC on International or Women's cricket. I also appreciate there's been a lot of tension on the project and lots of things have been discussed recently, but from reading discussions there is the genuine threat that the cricket SNG may be removed entirely until something acceptable can be created. Thanks guys. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:03, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I tend to try to avoid these discussions (too much stress at times), but I would suggest that the first-class tournaments in each Full Member's domestic structure should be included, so that would mean:

Sri Lanka Premier Trophy (from 1988-89)

India Irani Cup (in addition to the Ranji Trophy)

Zimbabwe Logan Cup (from 1993-94)

Bangladesh National Cricket League (from 2000-21)

Ireland Inter-Provincial Championship (from 2016)

Afghanistan Ahmad Shah Abdali 4-day Tournament (from 2017-18)

And then also the main List A and T20 tournaments in each of these countries (happy to do you list if you like). Bs1jac (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I was unsure on what to do with Ireland and Zimbabwe as I haven't come across/researched many domestic only Irish and Zimbabwe players. In terms of Sri Lankan's almost every one that's gone to AfD has been deleted as coverage has been difficult to find. Whether that's a historic player issue and not a current player issue I'm not sure. Not sure either about the Afghani FC tournament. Irani Cup I'd be happy to re-add, I'll look into the coverage for it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Got you. All of these events are worthy of coverage, but whether that means the players involved should be presumed notable is above me! Have you considered the CSA Provincial Competitions by the way? i.e. those for provincial teams that used to be the top level in SA before the franchises arrived. They are still FC/LA/T20 status. Bs1jac (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I looked through all of them before deciding. In terms of the CSA Provincial competitions I'm not sure how much coverage those playing in it get. They seem like the 2nd level of domestic competition in SA. Would someone playing one game for KwaZulu-Natal Inland against Gauteng gain enough coverage to be notable, I'm not sure. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:10, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Tend to agree with you there. Again, I was coming from the angle of the tournaments themselves being notable (which they are, as are several others possibly including some that don't have FC/LA/T20), but I realise we are talking about presumed notability of the players here . Bs1jac (talk) 20:17, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah there's no issue over the presumed notability of the tournaments, but NCRIC allows creation of an article for any player who's played FC/List-A/T20 cricket pretty much, which some users (admittedly not from the project, but from other areas) don't like due to stub creation and other issues. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I've created articles for every Irish first-class cricketer (give or take one or two obscure ones I'm sure to come across), so a fair chunk will have plenty of sources. The Irish Interpro is covered by RTE, BBC, Cricket Ireland ect, though disappointly Cricinfo can't seem to be bothered to cover it (: I've always tended to stick to creating articles on players from the 10 full members, then 12 when Afg and Ire were elevated. StickyWicket (talk) 20:26, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks StickyWicket, I remember seeing reasonable coverage of the Irish T20 league but wasn't sure whether that coverage filtered down to specific players. Would you say there's likely presumed notability for FC, List-A and T20 cricketers. I suppose they've only been officially classed since 2017 so there will likely be good internet coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

In terms of Member nations, we've seen the struggles at finding coverage for Sri Lankans, so I'd imagine it'd be similar for Afghani, Bangladeshi, and possibly Zimbabwean players, especially in the let's say less covered FC and List A comps. Happy to be told wrong on this though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd say there is reasonable coverage, and that will soon expand with Munster Reds being added to the List A competition, so more exposure for them. An Cricket Ireland are ensuring the best 48 players across Ireland get regular matches with the four domestic teams, so coverage will increase. We've always struggled with Asian coverage, mostly finding sources in their native languages. That and attracting editors from the subcontinent. Off the top of my head I know of only User:CreativeNorth (Pakistani, who should come back as he was an excellent editor) and User:Gihan Jayaweera (Sri Lankan and also a good editor). StickyWicket (talk) 20:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The big issue is like they have said, sources are a struggle for those type of pages where we can't access it. Basically these type of pages (South Africa, Sri Lanka, Zimbabwe) doesn't really have an website for their papers from back in the 60s or 70s compared to something like Australia or England. If they do, then it might be under subscription which is a pain in itself. HawkAussie (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

These were my views as well, coverage may well exist for these players, but we can't find it, and others will use that as an excuse for saying coverage doesn't exist at all, and we have no real rebuttal for that. I'm happy to add the Irish competitions to my list though, but don't think we should add the other nations competitions as those at NSPORTS will likely disapprove of it, unless one of the two editors you've mentioned can come up with a good location for finding significant coverage sources for them. How do people feel about some of the dates for the comps as well? There's been a few late 1800s early 1900s County Championship players at AfD and we've been struggling for them as well. Maybe it should be County Championship (1918–onwards). Rugbyfan22 (talk) 08:56, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Also interested to hear the views of the other main page creators in @Bobo192:, @Johnlp: and @Lugnuts:. Those who create the pages should have the biggest say really. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

THanks for the work/ping RF22. Did you know about this page that I started last summer, which has the same goal of trying to list at the FC/LA/T20 domestic tournaments? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lugnuts:, Yes that's where I sources the main information on tournaments. Obviously I have filtered some out that would likely not bring presumed notability, and added some missing historic tournaments that would bring presumed notability to players. My plan was also to integrate this list into the guidelines more if people approve of a change like this, but we'll get to that later. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I’m not around until much later today, perhaps tomorrow, and will add my views then. Johnlp (talk) 10:20, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Will respond when I am more alert. Just reminding myself to do so. Bobo. 10:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll try and leave this open as long as possible/until we have a good consensus to get as many views as possible from the people it's important too. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps we should look at something similar what I proposed, though I'm less certain on the 10 FC/LA/T20 or combination of minimum after players who had more appearances than 10 were still being nominated, so kinda lost my goodwill on that. But there it was again:

• International cricketers: Test, ODI and T20I cricketers are automatically notable - including T20I players from associate nations, as an international sportsman is an international sportsman! International cricket also includes international cricket not afforded the aforementioned statuses, but instead first-class, List A, or T20 status (i.e. Intercontinental Cup, World Cricket League). The same for women's cricket too.

• Domestic cricket: players in domestic cricket are only notable if playing in any competition which holds FC/LA/T20 status in any of the 12 full member nations of the ICC. Players in events such as the Everest Premier League, or Global T20 Canada do not qualify for inclusion. Cricketers with over 10? appearances in total across any format(s) are automatically notable. Cricketers below this threshold are included on a case-by-case basis where appropriate sources can be found to indicate wider notability outside of cricket, for example Milo Talbot (British Army officer). If sources can't be found for one appearance John Smith, redirect him to a list. The same for women's domestic cricket too.

• Umpires: Umpires who have stood in an international cricket match are automatically notable (and you can assume have a lengthy domestic standing to have reached international level). Those who have not stood at international level, and are not former players qualifying them under the above domestic cricket section are done on a case-by-case basis also. For example, Ron Lay never played at first-class level, but did umpire in FC/LA cricket on 316 occasions between 1953–1968 – he is therefore notable in that respect.

• Teams: very much dependent on what coverage can be found, especially for historial teams. Personal elevens that appeared a handful of times should be redirects to the person they were named for (99% of the time those people are notable in their own right, irrespective of their CRIN notability). Any teams that are lacking sources should be redirected to a list of teams for that particular country, like List of historically significant English cricket teams.

• Stadia: grounds which have hosted men's/women's international cricket automatically notable. Grounds in domestic cricket included based on how many FC/LA/T20 matches have been held, again I'd argue over 10 makes those grounds likely notable in their own right. Below that, additional coverage required for sure, failing that, redirect to a list of grounds in said country, or of said team.

To be honest, sources for many domestic cricketers pre-WW2 aren't that hard to source. My first-class military cricketers project has guys who made a handful of FC appearances, yet they're covered by multiple books, are gazetted in the London Gazette, have obituaries published in newspapers and Wisden. Plenty of ways to source them. StickyWicket (talk) 14:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

On a side note about lists, when redirecting to lists, I find the bog standard names only lists boring and of limited use to readers. If we are to aim to become the best resource for cricket on the internet, any lists of teams should contain that teams statistical history, sortable by player, like with List of Bermuda ODI cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 14:38, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Glad you like the lists btw. Bs1jac (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I noted your suggestion ahead of suggested what I've suggested, and in terms of specific competitions they're not far different from what I've suggested., albeit with the removal of some competitions that we're seeing are not great for presuming notability. The only issue I have with setting a specific bar of number of matches is that in many cases it wont be great at presuming notability. Someone making their County Championship debut this year for example will likely have significant coverage of their junior career and perhaps even U19 appearances, but under guidelines wouldn't be notable until they have 10 appearances (yes they'd pass GNG but I'm talking about presumed notability, and one match for someone at that level would bring presumed notability) and the same would likely occur to anyone playing in one of the big T20 franchise tournaments. Also as we've seen at some AfDs 10 appearances in the Quaid-e-Azam isn't enough to stop articles being deleted as has occurred in at least 2 maybe 3 discussions I can remember. I do agree that perhaps women's cricket could be expanded on the official list. One user recently (I can't remember exactly who) has created towards 20 English Women's domestic cricketers (who wouldn't pass current guidelines but look like they pass GNG) and has been commended for that, maybe the English domestic women's comps should be added to the list. In terms of the lists I totally agree with you, but would take a lot of hard work from the project to do. I try and maintain the Hampshire ones (FC, List-A, T20 and International) and they're all up to date, but it does take a good while to update them, and I note that the majority of other counties don't have lists like this, and just lists of players that likely aren't complete. But if there's enough on here willing to do it, certainly it can be done. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

You have a good point, I've seen someone on the NSPORT discussion taking aim at Test cricketers. The nomination of players who made 10+ appearances when the nominator agreed 10 was sufficient, then went against that, is disheartening. My 10+ appearances idea was more of an olive branch, not nah, withdrawn now. It's good to see women's cricket being expanded. I'd support adding the women's domestic games to the list (though if we can find a way to quietly dump that Hundred shite, that would be great!!!). I'm going to be on a clinical placement in the back-o-beyond in a few weeks, so I won't have much to do of an evening, so can make a start on some lists then. StickyWicket (talk) 16:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It's got a bit vitriolic over there now, it's basically become those who don't like them versus those who create/edit sports articles. If there's continuing support for these plans I'm happy to take them further and add more women's domestic cricket to them (perhaps the RHF trophy and maybe the female IPL and other female franchise tournaments to it). In terms of the lists I note that only a few of the county sides have lists like the one you've mentioned. Does CA or CI have an ordered list on who played when to make creating these lists easier, or is it more just like putting a jigsaw together from the alphabetical lists? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It has indeed. The most recent proposal is outlandish, particularly the part where it is suggested to start banning people. No way! It could be the best proposal in history, but with that in it I'm opposed out of principle. I think it just goes to show we're best running things in house. We didn't have an issue before all this. That sounds like a good idea, it would be nice to bring the women's inclusion guidelines on par with the men's. Unfortuantely CA and CI don't have any lists like that, so it's more a painstaking jigsaw to put together. It's a bit like List of Irish first-class cricketers I put together, painstaking, frustrating and still not correctly formatted!!! As a starting point, I'd likely make a start on lists for teams with <50 players. StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that really concerned me, the proposal in itself isn't too bad, but adding about banning people is almost turning it to something you'd expect in a facist regime and not Wikipedia. That's annoying and I'd agree with starting with the smaller teams as it'll be easier. I noticed recently that the Hampshire list I edit the current player cap numbers are about 100 players out (listing in late 600s early 700s for current players whereas in fact they are late 500s currently) so god knows what's happened there. Maybe only players after they regained first-class status have cap numbers. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It really did come across as very totalitarian in nature. How to makes friends and influence people! Then again, a few days ago the proposer was calling for an article up for AfD to be deleted under G5 because it was created by a user who was banned sometime ago (circumventing the AfD, which at the time was keep), so I don't really expect anything better from that user if I'm honest. StickyWicket (talk) 19:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think people are starting to become facetious just to spite other users with different views. Everyday this week we've had a new deletion close discussion on cricketers for a minor issues such as an article only be 'redirected' and not 'deleted and redirected' or because the closer had a different opinion to his. If people want to actually get something to change I think we're probably further away than when the discussions started. Hopefully my suggestions here are sort of a step forward for cricket though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I've figured out the Hampshire list! I created that back in 2010 and somewhere I have a draft hanging about for pre-1864 players, so that'll be where the discrepancy comes from. I'm obviously easily distracted! I think we're further away than ever from a solution. I'll have to take a look at those discussions you mentioned, I missed those. I think your a big help to this project, so thanks for all your work. StickyWicket (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The Hampshire list was originally in 4 sections if I remember correctly: 1864–1885, 1895–1918 (I think), 1918–1970 (I think) and 1970–present (again, I think). I combined them as I thought this was strange, and have updated each season since the merging. It's only recently I noticed the discrepancy in the caps (not that it's a big issue as the page doesn't state there official cap numbers). Thanks, I feel its most important that the creators have the biggest say in discussions (although I see Lugnuts has stepped away today (I hope he's alright as his talk page is concerning)) and although my creations in other sports tend to have other sources than statistical ones they tend to mainly be stubs (and my cricket creations in the past were all stubs). I just feel it's better to come to a solution that the majority who edit cricket articles regularly are reasonably happy with than being given something or told to do something they've not had a big say in. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Blimey, 11 years ago I made that. I think I split it because it was the done thing back then for large lists and I do recall my laptop at the time lagging! That is concerning what Lugnuts has put, so to be on the safe side I have emailed User:Emergency. I think it's important those most involved with projects have the final say, I'm not much of a fan of outside interference in the project - it never seems to solve anything and just creates a shitshow. My creations used to be very stubby, but they're more niche these days like cricketers who died in war, or MCC members who had interesting backstories. But from stubs we can grow to make good articles. My original creation of John Manners was a bit naff and now he's a GA and hoping for FA at some point. StickyWicket (talk) 21:30, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

My view will always be that if you build them someone will add to them. Lots of my rugby stubs are picked up by specific editors who follow a certain team who will then add information and update them along the way. Some will obviously not get picked up but that doesn't mean they're not as valuable/notable as those that have. A lot of the time I find sports articles are just filled with trivial information and fancruft, such as our favourite baseball FA recently, and quite often that can be the difference between it being a stub or a C class article, despite them being of about the same quality in terms of GNG and a specific SNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:50, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

• Storm has suggested some differing dates for presumed notability for the Pakistani Quaid-e-Azam cup (been updated on the list). How do people feel about them? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  I'd need to analyse (hopefully I'll get time later), but seems a bit random (which sums up Pakistan domestic cricket!). Also need to add the Patron's Trophy (some years) and Pentangular Trophy (most, if not all, years). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Apparently they were the years when the competition had 8 teams or less, but I'm concerned about some of the earlier dates and finding notability for players from those years. It's the country that's confused me most so get back to me with your views as I really am not sure on any of the Pakistani competitions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think the PCB were as equally confused!!! Still, makes for a good quiz question: Which Pakistani airline which is currently banned from flying in the US and Europe once had a first-class cricket team? :D StickyWicket (talk) 19:32, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I should have a mostly free day tomorrow, so will see what I can do. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Excellent, thanks a lot for your help. There aren't many examples of Pakistani cricketers that have been kept to go off to try and work out if there's an period/tournament/teams that gets notability apart from more recent cricketers. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not getting very far with finding a reasonable benchmark. The incessant restructuring almost makes it a season-by-season exercise at times, and it just doesn't appear that individual cricketers have been afforded coverage to anything like the level of players in England/Australia/New Zealand, for which we have the most easily accessible information. As such, it's likely that even players with dozens of appearances will not meet GNG.

Anyway. FC was almost all knockout until 1979/80, so few players outside the most successful teams would accumulate appearances (and likely coverage) during this era. After that, competitions were often flooded with lesser teams and a lesser players; e.g. there were almost 40 teams in the Patron's Trophy in 1986/87 & 1987/88. Descriptions such as "minnows" or "no better than club cricketers" are common. It's the same story with the List A competitions since the late 1990s.

I'm just not seeing a way of structuring a usable appearance-based guideline based on competitions for Pakistan domestic cricket, other than perhaps the Pentangular Trophy, which was contested irregularly but generally involved only the top teams or provincial sides (as the QeAT has been since the 2019 restructuring) when it was held. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your hard work. I think I'll go with the three 6 team reformed competitions from 2019 as presumed notable and and add the Pentagular Trophy to the list. Some other players may be notable but they can still have articles under GNG rules anyway so I think it's best to keep it simple for the reader instead of having just random tournaments that were, and random tournaments that weren't. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Any other views on the rest of the list Wjemather? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:29, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Basic purpose of WP:NCRIC (in my view) was and is to protect deletion of pre-internet era cricket articles for which we can't find coverage but it exists (for example, south asian countries where newspapers archives are almost non-existant). So my point was to fine tune previous seasons to recent seasons where we agree that less teams mean more chances of meeting WP:GNG. Whatever we do here should be across the board (if we want to omit QeA trophy's all seasons except recent ones then we have to do the same to South Africa, Zimbabwe, Bangladesh, Carribean, India, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, or any other country where finding coverage for pre-internet era cricketers is hard, for them cricketarchive is a good source to support the article for time being). Störm (talk) 22:10, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

If you really think that the presence and formulation of a guideline is to prevent deletion rather than foster creation, that's a very negative view of a project, and one that I would hope no long-term members would want to prescribe to. But I'll point once more towards the Related Changes pages and say that there is so little work going on in terms of article creation that it really doesn't matter. Bobo. 02:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

If I nominate a Pakistani bio with even 20 matches then it will get deleted because no will be able to find the coverage needed to pass WP:GNG. To save such articles, we need fine tuned WP:NCRIC with WP:GNG so people accept worthiness of WP:NCRIC. Most people nowadays don't care about our bright line because everyone knows it is broken. And, if in current climate, if anyone will RfC for removal of this brightline clause then they can easily find consensus for removal. As AssociateAffiliate has said it is better to fix our issues in-house. Störm (talk) 06:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Storm's first view is pretty much correct, although a bit specific to pre-internet era players. It's as much a guideline to help the creation of articles as it helps a creator know what he can create on and what not to create on, but as the guideline says I something is created that can't be proved to be notable it may be deleted or merged. In terms of removing SA, Zimbabwe and the West Indies these three countries have the added benefit of English being the main/one of the major spoken languages in their countries, so there would likely be sources in English, which are easier to find than sources in Urdu or similar or languages that uses a different alphabetical style to English. My suggestions certainly need fine tuning and I thank Wjemather who is currently helping on the Pakistani notability side of things. Obviously we want as much creation as possible to happen, but you have to remember that a lot of creators will only want to create topics on current players, who because of Lugnuts tireless work basically all exist. There's not been many male English cricketers created because the season hasn't started yet and all the current players who are notable have articles already. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Rugbyfan22's proposal seems a bit too long to be an SNG, but I think it's still an improvement. My thought was one Test/ODI or select "top" domestic match (Indian Premier League / post-1963 English County Championship), or any 10 first-class/List A/other top-level domestic T20 matches. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:09, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My proposal is actually makes no change to the length of the cricket SNG at WP:NCRIC, just changes the wording. It changes the document at WP:OFFCRIC to better list notable competitions and better align to presumed notability, and edits WP:CRIN which is a complete mess and really needs a rewrite. In terms of your proposals a lot of amateur plays still had notability even if it was under 10 matches, and some players that have played 10 matches in certain competitions are still not notable. We'd have to decided what top domestic competitions are, and the likely list would still end up similar to the one I've suggested I'd imagine. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

My understanding was that WP:OFFCRIC was previously not important to the SNG, and under your proposal it would be. Other than that, I agree; there's a reason I'm not making my own proposal. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 19:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:OFFCRIC has existed for a while and is linked to the notability guidelines on the home page of the WikiProject. It lists all the competitions that have been played at the highest international or domestic level as noted in the first bullet of WP:NCRIC. It's always been an aide to NCRIC since it's inception and I still intend it too be, but just make it clearer it exists as currently it's slightly hidden and not easily accessible unless you go through the project. It's similar to the list of professional leagues as used by the Football WikiProject at WP:FPL which is linked in a similar way that I intend OFFCRIC to be linked. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:30, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Specific competitions discussion

Thought I'd split the heading so discussion on the competitions list I've suggested (here) can be better discussed, as people seem to have differing views on what should and shouldn't be included. The original list is at WP:OFFCRIC so you can see what's already been removed. Discussion on associate nation T20I can also be done here. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:57, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

• • Competitions we're certain bring presumed notability: Tests, ODI, T20I between full member nations, County Championship + Bob Willis Trophy, Sheffield Shield, the various England and Wales List-A comps in matches between first-class counties, Afghanistan Premier League (APL), Big Bash and Big Bash League, Bangladesh Premier League (BPL), T20 Blast, IPL, Super Smash, Pakistan Super League (PSL), Mzansi Super League (MSL), Sri Lanka Premier League, Lanka Premier League, Stanford 20/20, Caribbean T20, Caribbean Premier League (CPL), Champions League Twenty20.

• • Competitions that may bring presumed notability, but may need more discussion: Others listed here, T20Is between associate nations, World Cricket League

• • Competitions we don't believe to bring presumed notability: Afghanistan FC comps, Bangladeshi FC comps, Dunleep Trophy (IND) , Quaid-e-Azam before restructure and Patron's trophy (PAK) , Howa Bowl (SA) , SA 3day cup, Premier Trophy (Sri Lanka) , Inter-colonial comp (WI), Zimbabwe FC comp, UK universities matches, Afghanistan List-A comps, Bangladeshi List-A comps, English minor counties list-a matches or matches against a minor counties/cricket board side, Vijay Hazare trophy (IND), Most Pakistani List-A comps (as not listed), CSA one day cup (SA), Zimbabwe List-A comps, Dhaka premier division T20s (Bangladesh), Syed Mushtaq ali trophy (IND), Super 8 T20 (PAK) + T20s before National T20 cup reform, CSA Provincial T20 comp (SA), Africa T20 cup (SA), SLC Super Provincial T20 + SLC Twenty20 tournament (Sri Lanka), Zimbabwe T20s.

Hope this helps clear it up a bit. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for putting this section in - I was searching for the list myself! I'm not 100% sold on the inclusion of the Irish competitions. The competitions themselves are clearly notable, I'm just not sure that I would like to say for sure that every player who plays in them is going to be (as an example, Michael Gilmour seems difficult to track much down on - certainly compared to someone like Hugh Bernard who played the same number of matches at a similar time). Some, certainly - but I think I'd rather go to GNG on this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

StickyWicket said that the coverage of Irish cricket was good, and given he's created a lot of the articles on it, I've trusted him on adding to my list. Happy to see other views though. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Understand the point, but someone like Jamie Magowan seems marginal at best. Would that survive at AfD based on the sources found with a search for Jamie Magowan cricket? It just seems the sketchiest of them - if this was a player from a 1906 Championship side I'd be less worried if I found this much, but it's a 2017 debut player where we'd hope for more I think. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm happy to remove the Irish FC/List-A/T20 comps as I was undecided on them when doing the list. The better players in the comp, who will likely get better coverage, are probably all internationals anyway, given its only a 4 team comp. Any others with coverage would still be notable under GNG. I'd like to know what StickyWicket says again though as it may only be the tournament that's notable not the players. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I think I'd be happier with that - it seems the odd one out amongst the list (and would be an obvious way of attacking the guideline imo). As you say, we have the GNG fall back to rely on in any case and if coverage increases in quality then we can add it later. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:02, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

@AssociateAffiliate: How do you feel about this? Is the coverage on the players good enough for presumed notability, or is it best if it's left off for them, and then discussed again in the future if the coverage of the players continues to grow. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Suggestion - add Bangladesh Cricket League to the list (a four-team first-class tournament comprising the best-performing players from the eight-team National Cricket League). Störm (talk) 00:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Störm, Have moved it here so it's easier to discuss specific competitions and people can find discussions more clearly, I know very little about Bangladeshi cricket, but a four team tournament may lead to good notability for the players, do you have any examples of players who've only played in the Bangladesh Cricket League and what the notability of them looks like. Obviously the guidelines are not always about performance (although better performance could lead to better notability) but the presumed notability of players. For Sri Lanka for example we weren't finding any sources on any FC only players no matter how good they were. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Aren't we in danger here of creating our own two-tier set of competitions? Including the four-team Bangladesh F/C competition, but not the Zimbabwe four/five-team equivalent, for example? Doesn't this enforce WP:BIAS? Also, and probably an oversight, but there's no mention of the FC/LA comps for New Zealand or the West Indies. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That's one reason why I don't think the Bangladeshi comp should be included. I'm not sure there is enough coverage for it anyway. The FC/List-A comps for NZ and WI are both listed on my potential list and I think they should be included, but a couple have said maybe they shouldn't, so they're in the second bullet of this section. Realistically I think they'll likely be included. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. There's a ton of coverage on the NZ comps (websites such as Stuff, NZ Herald, etc), and the WI ones have good coverage too. Esp. when their LA tournaments have invitied English teams to take part, such as Kent and Hampshire! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts That's good information to know and makes me more confident in including them, was wondering how much coverage the Australian List-A comp (Marsh cup or something along those lines) gets. Wasn't sure if it was timed alongside the BBL or anything so it was just grade players playing or whether the coverage is actually good for it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Coverage of Australia's LA comp. is pretty good too. Under normal non-COVID situations, their calendar would have specific slots for their FC, LA and BBL tournaments, with little or no overlap. Ditto for New Zealand, too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:22, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks. This was my assumption. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Cricket South Africa (CSA) has now restructured its domestic format. As of last month, it used to have two FC/LA competitions running at the same time, franchise and provincial. There were six franchise teams and 15/16 prov. teams. The franchise element has been scrapped, with the next season (Sept 21 onwards) having just the prov. teams. From the looks of it, it will be very similar to the county setup in England, with two divisions, with promotion and relegation. A bit of crystal-balling, but I'm sure that CSA will want this to be their flagship tournament, with plenty of coverage. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

That's presumably going to be the same competition as the Sunfoil Series/Currie Cup? That is on RF's list - there was some discussion in the section above about SA; the whole franchise thing generally confuses the heck out of me... Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's listed on the list. I knew about the restructuring of the format, but i'm not sure we can guess the coverage of the new competition before it starts. Obviously when it starts and if it has good presumed coverage for the players then it can be added at the time. I removed the CSA larger tournaments as I struggled to see how someone playing for KwaZulu-Natal Inland would get enough coverage for an article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the conversation above. If we keep the Currie Cup on the list for now and then revisit and see in the future I guess. I'm never too clear on the coverage for SA, but I suspect in part that's been caused by the franchise stuff. There seems the likelihood of at least some coverage - although some of the SA papers seem paywalled (if anyone can get into this article I'd be fascinated to read what it's about!). Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:18, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It's not too different from their rugby stuff. The main rugby Currie Cup has the 4/5 powerhouse sides, but then another 10 sides who are smaller and get less coverage, although it's split into 2 divisions. They then play a number of other tournaments to fill out their calendar, but have also created the franchises that used to compete in Super Rugby and now will compete in the Pro14. At least with the franchises it's easier to work out presumed notability for the players as you're only dealing with saying 100/120 players instead of towards 500. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:06, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

• Have removed the Indian Ranji Trophy from the criteria now after AfDs showed that it doesn't bring presumed notability for all players from one appearance. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Women's domestic cricket

Does anyone have any idea about including women's domestic cricketers? Could we suggest that:

• Women's Cricket Super League
• Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy
• The Hundred (cricket)
• Women's Big Bash League

might be producing notability for players on a consistent sort of basis - we certainly have a lot of newly created articles with pretty good sourcing for the RHFT. Mpk662 is working on these and I'd be interested in their view here. It's possible we might consider the Super Smash (women's cricket) as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Blue Square Thing, currently on the list at WP:OFFCRIC are the Women's Big Bash and Women's Cricket Super League (KSL). I've suggested adding the RHF Trophy, Women's T20 Challenge and confirmation of the Australian Women's Twenty20 Cup in my proposals. The Hundred (ew) should be left out until the competition actually begins. If there's coverage for the players in the Super Smash then I'm happy for that to be added as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tag. My view is that an argument can be made for any professional or semi-professional league to be included: so that's the Women's Cricket Super League and Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy (and upcoming Regional T20 and Hundred) for England, Women's Big Bash League and Women's National Cricket League for Australia, Women's T20 Challenge for India and possibly the Super Smash and Hallyburton Johnstone Shield for New Zealand. Just had a quick look for how professional NZ is - detail here. As Blue Square Thing mentioned I've hopefully (presuming I haven't missed any) made pages for everyone who has played a WCSL or RHFT match. Pretty sure there's similar coverage for all WBBL and WNCL players and WT20 Challenge players. So far NZ only has coverage for international players and I think there's a debate to be had there. Re the old Australian Women's Twenty20 Cup - not sure when the state sides became semi-professional: they started fully professionalising from 2016 (eg NSW), so presumably they were semi-professional before this. Again, debate to be had but I'd probably be in favour of including all the tournaments above as long as there's enough coverage: obviously women's cricket coverage lags way behind men's so any expansion to me is a good thing (and hopefully less contentious!) Mpk662 (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your views Mpk662, if the coverage for NZ players hasn't really dropped down to the levels of domestic only players yet then I'm not sure we should be including their comps at this stage. The older Australian T20 tournament is sort of already included on the list at WP:OFFCRIC (with the word QUERY next to it) so that's sort of why I've left it in, and knowing how popular Women's cricket is in Australia. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mpk662. What sort of date would you take the WNCL and WBBL back to? I think in OFFCRIC it says 2015/16 probably: does that make sense? I know coverage is better in Australia than it ever was in the UK, but I'm not sure how far back that goes. Women's T20 Challenge makes sense - almost all the players in that seem to be internationals anyway and it's so recent that coverage is solid in general.

On NZ, gut feeling says it might be best to hang back a bit and see what coverage is like - the GNG fall back is always there if it's needed. Things will likely change quite a lot over the next few years. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm probably not the best person to be judging on Australian domestic cricket, as I don't know too much about it, but for now 2015–16 seems good for WBBL and WNCL: that was the year the WBBL started and seems to be when larger investment and professionalisation started happening across the board (see here for example). Happy to hang back for now on NZ and any earlier Aus domestic cricket, but perhaps could be expanded in future if anything further comes up Mpk662 (talk) 11:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mpk662, maybe we should leave the pre-Women's Big Bash tournament out then if it wasn't fully professional. Seems like there was an increase in coverage with the Women's Big Bash, and others with coverage would be notable with GNG anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That all sounds good - could you add the women's stuff to your own document RF? I was originally looking for it there... Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah my list was only for male domestic anyway, but I will do if it's all implemented. It's in my proposals anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:06, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Have added to my list now, no idea what the potential regional T20 comp will be called so I've just left it as that at the bottom. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

You've almost got it, literally just going to be called the Women's Regional T20, unless they decide to change it to something more flashy before the season starts. I'll make a page for it soon if no one else gets to it. Mpk662 (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'm sure the ECB will get some great sponsorship name or something. Obviously won't be added until it kicks off. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

T20I criteria

The discussion that took place about the T20I issue is at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 85#T20I / WT20I widening scope and International Cricket in YYYY articles. I'd suggest we stick more or less to that - it seems to be a reasonable compromise. I wonder if Lugnuts, who wrote it, would have a view? Or Harrias, Spike 'em, Andrew nixon, Topcardi or PeeJay all of whom contributed? Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that's a reasonable compromise on the T20I issue. We're not seeing loads on articles on associate T20I players anyway. I've looked at some of the lists at Template:International cricketers and most of the associate players are still redlinked. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to be proved wrong but the scope agreed there looks far too wide for what we are aiming to achieve here, including potentially thousands of players for which GNG-level coverage is a pipe-dream. Just because we are not seeing the articles, doesn't mean we don't have to consider them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:11, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Could potentially remove the global qualifiers and regional finals from the list. Anyone who's played at a World Cup should really be considered notable. If there's coverage they'll pass GNG anyway or they might pass another part of the GNG. Article creation still seems low though, probably because of the lack of interest/coverage. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:19, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Since the ICC gave full T20I status to all its members a couple of years ago, I tweaked that guide to disallow ALL players from Associates who previously didn't have T20I status from meeting the existing notability criteria. Here are some examples of the lists of players who this applies to: Peru, men, Bhutan, men, Austria, women, Mozambique, women. It's unlikely any redlinks on those lists would become blue, either via finding info on each player, or someone creating them on the off-chance. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:27, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts, Do you think the players who have only played in global and regional qualifiers would get a good enough level of coverage to pass GNG? As Wjemather's suggesting it may well be a case that people feel this is to inclusive still. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:32, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it was just the final of a regional qualifier, so maybe that can be ditched, but I do think anyone who plays in a global qualification tournament (men's, women's) would pass. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Lugnuts Yeah its only regional finals that was a typo sorry. Not sure there's a need for the regional finals aspect to be included, but the global qualification tournaments could potentially be included, depends on others thoughts. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems a reasonable position to take - if there's coverage that shows notability for other players then articles on them is reasonable. The regional final bit was only for men as well, so it would remove a level of difference between men's and women's cricket, which is probably a reasonable thing in itself.

It might be a good idea to have Test and ODI and bullet one and T20I as bullet two btw - or at least bring the current bullet 4 up to bullet 2 so that the two are more obviously connected. It caused some issues at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christina Gough (an article recently re-created btw - Lugnuts: would this meet our criteria or not? My gut feeling says not, although it has decent sourcing so might be considered to meet wider notability anyway) Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:36, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

@Bs1jac: may have a view as they worked on many of those lists and has a wider interest - also in women's cricket above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that's not a bad idea. It seems likely that bullet 3 will be removed as the World Cricket League would be too inclusive, but moving it up to bullet 2 would help. That AfD looks like it'd fail the cricket guidelines, but looks enough there to scrape GNG. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

re: Christina Gough - strictly would fail WP:CRIC, but there seems to be plenty of interviews and the like sourcing that article. I know I've created a couple of articles on female cricket captains that would fail too, but easily pass WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That was my gut feeling as well - I don't object to it, but wouldn't die on a hill defending it if people decided it should be deleted. It's almost a good example of the "person who doesn't meet these criteria but about whom there are clearly a bunch of sources" fall back Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Will need tidying up on WP:OFFCRIC which doesn't have this criteria on associate T20Is at all. But i'll change it with consensus. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes I do a lot of the work on the player list pages for each team (men and women), including lots of research on Associate nations. I do NOT however create any player profiles (I did a couple in early 2019 before Lugnuts pointed out the earlier discussion). I think the player lists are very useful and fit well with those for FM nations. Regarding player notability (for international players), I broadly agree with the current criteria but have to say that they are not especially clear. Note that the WCL no longer exists going forward. I would say Bullet one: everyone who has played in any men's/women's Test or ODI (including AM nations). Bullet 2: Everyone who has played any T20I/WT20I for a FM national team. Bullet 3: anyone who has played a T20I for any team since January 2019 (men) or June 2018 (women) at a T20/WT20 World Cup, Asia Cup, and probably men's and women's global qualifier. Regional finals less so. Then perhaps Bullet 4 to cover T20Is for those few AMs who had status prior to 2018/2019? Regarding players outside of these criteria, I did nominate (successfully) a small number for deletion from Singapore I think, and considered asking the group about about the handful of players on the Germany women's list... these fail CRIN but are well written and sourced, presumably by someone with specific knowledge of the team so I chose to leave them be. Bs1jac (talk) 17:05, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Bullets 1 and 2 can be combined there I think and bullets 3 and 4 can be combined as well. Just to check full T20I status was given to all men's teams in January 2019 and women's teams in July 2018 right. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:14, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

That's correct, although women's was backdated to June 2018 to include the 2018 women's Asia Cup. Bs1jac (talk) 17:18, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Does the Asia Cup (both men's and women's) get enough coverage for presumed notability? I'm guessing yes from the teams involved. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I would say definitely yes for the Asia Cup. Every other instance it is played in ODI format so that's a yes (generally if a non-ODI team qualifies, they tend to get special ODI status just for the tournament). The other times, when it is T20 format, any team coming through qualifying would likely be an established AM (Hong Kong, UAE, Nepal). There is always plenty of coverage of the tournament, and the teams involved would generally include players likely to have coverage in the media. Bs1jac (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Well there are two small teams who apparently have a bitter rivarly, but I don't know if India vs Pakistan would generate any news. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:56, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I guessed as much. Think we seem quite happy with these guidelines on T20Is now. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:58, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Rugbyfan22's proposal

Should the current cricket notability guidelines be changed? 19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Now that there has been support and good discussion over my proposal, I thought I'd take it one step further to give I guide on what I think would be the best way in implementing this change. In my mind the proposal involves three separate areas: WP:OFFCRIC, WP:NCRIC and WP:CRIN and my changes would be the following:

1. WP:OFFCRIC

• Replace the list of male domestic competitions with the list I have created as listed above in the discussion.
• Remove the World Cricket League from international competitions as It's unlikely players in associate nations without ODI status would have presumed coverage (happy to drop this one though as I'm a bit undecided over it)
• Add the Rachael Heyhoe Flint Trophy and Women's T20 Challenge to the list of Women's domestic competitions.
• Any further additions/removal of competitions to this list should be vetted by the Cricket WikiProject before addition/removal to the list in the future.
• Add information on associate nations in T20I which removes notability for T20Is not in a World T20 or Global Qualifier (mens and women's)

2. WP:NCRIC

• Edit point 1 of NCRIC so that the list at WP:OFFCRIC is linked. So it reads Have appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged to have been played at the highest international or domestic level
• Remove point 3 if the World Cricket League is removed from WP:OFFCRIC (but keep if not removed)
• Add a point Umpires are presumed notable if they've been a member of the Elite Panel of ICC Umpires or meet another of the above points.
• Move current point 4 to point 2 and remove regional finals (mens)

3. WP:CRIN

• Add the WP:OFFCRIC link to line 1 (the same as point one of WP:NCRIC) and additional line on umpires and remove line three as above if World Cricket League removed
• Change the paragraph that reads 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. to Senior domestic first-class, List A and Twenty20 competitions that are deemed likely to lead to presumed notability for men's and women's cricketers can be found here. These are competitions deemed to have been played at the highest domestic level. 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.
• Add a section reading Players and umpires that have played in or officiated in other first-class, List A and T20 matches and competitions that are deemed not likely to lead to presumed notability may still be notable if they can be shown to pass the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Some of the wording could obviously be changed, but I think the main ideas of my proposal are set out here although I'm still open to ideas on improving certain bits of my proposal. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, this is all a Good Thing.

In CRIC what is meant by "judged by a substantial source"? That seems to be vague and open to interpretation. It might be worth considering an alternative wording, such as:

Have appeared as a player or umpire in a competitive match between two teams playing in a top-level domestic competition. See the agreed list of top-level domestic competitions.

I know that's not particularly different, but my gut feeling is that the whole "substantial sources" and "highest level" stuff was added in an attempt to be able to justify the inclusion of matches going back to 1709, rather than what we actually mean: played in a first-class etc... match. I know the list will help, but it would be better to take that ambiguity (which was added without any discussion iirc) out of it. Competitive could be removed easily fwiw.

I would suggest that CRIN needs to be largely gutted as well fwiw. In particular:

CRIN suggestions in detail - collapsed to not make this too long

the paragraph at the bottom that starts "Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted..." should be immediately underneath the list at the top. This is a really significant paragraph and has been in CRIN since at least 2007 - at which point it was a much shorter document. It's been pushed down the document and has become something that people never get to; it's actually really, really important to consider it imo; the paragraphs dealing with Full Member status could be cut down to a list effectively; be very careful about Historical sources. It's not very useful because the link doesn't actually list sources - if anything is seems almost designed to confuse and almost leads us to "I have a book and you don't" as a way to justify inclusion. I would rather see it removed or replace by something that says what is actually meant: there are lots of useful books about cricket, and Wisden, Lillywhite etc... are particularly useful; the paragraphs starting "Note that the term "first-class cricket" is misleading..." and "In practice, this project has de facto tended to..." need to either be removed entirely or replaced by a single, short paragraph saying "hey, there are some good sources; think about using them" (as above). The statements about single-wicket, players from 1709 etc... need to be removed entirely. I have no problem with saying that some players who never played first-class cricket might be notable; if there are sources, not just names in scorecards. But that was part of a deliberate push to redefine what first-class cricket means. some parts can be cut down or subheaded more efficiently - the clubs, teams and venues section for example; it would be useful to consider something about tours, competitions and individual matches - these are occasionally added and it would be useful to have some sort of guidance. There have been issues with Under 19 tours being created before, for example;

I have no problems with the things that are being suggested, and the list of competitions is a sensible idea. But CRIN is a significant problem that really doesn't help anyone's case just now. If it can be made shorter, more readable and actually say what is meant when people use it to support an argument, it would be really helpful.

At some point it might be worth making clear that an alternative to deletion is redirection to a list. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:34, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with all the points you've mentioned here. I'm surprised at how long CRIN is compared to other sports, but then again cricket and definitions of matches can be difficult. Perhaps rewriting CRIN is needed but I think it should be a whole other discussion entirely as otherwise we're giving ourselves a lot to do. Obviously if my proposal doesn't pass then I'm happy to support the rewrite as you've suggested. A lot of it does seem to all be about inclusion. I think I've mentioned in a discussion previously about how you could basically say any FC, List A or T20 match was a significant match and that is wrong. I think we're better saying off these are the competitions notable under SNG, if a player has played any form of cricket in another competition not listed then need to pass GNG or can be placed/redirected in/to a list. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Have also edited the line at NCRIC to remove the substantial source bit, as it's covered in my change to CRIN anyway. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for late arrival in this discussion: I said I’d put my thoughts down, but RL does not get any less busy. I’ll try to be as brief as I can be, but there are complicated issues here.

I think the idea of having an easily-accessed list of competitions that would qualify individual cricketers to be considered potentially notable is a good one and should be done. But I think we also need to recognise its limitations. What, for instance, about matches that took place before the competitions were set up? Or matches that are outside the competitive framework? There’s a danger here that we start drawing lines that reflect our own perceptions (or prejudices) rather than any external “measure”, and that is uncomfortably close to OR.

There is, I think, a way around this, but I suspect that it may not be universally popular. It’s to go on using the definitions of “first-class”, “List A” and “T20” cricket matches, as we have been, but to tie them firmly to a single externally-derived definition (so not our own definition, but a widely-accepted external one). For recent history (since 1947) and with List A and T20, that’s relatively simple, since national cricket authorities, co-ordinated through ICC, determine the status of fixtures. Further back, there are more problems, but the Association of Cricket Statisticians (and Historians) (ACS) has spent many years drawing up and agreeing lists of first-class matches in all relevant countries, weighing up the strengths of teams and of the individuals in them, and giving due consideration to historical context and later development. Its lists are as close as we’re likely to find to being definitive: there are a few places where there has been controversy, but they relate to just a few matches that affect long-cherished statistics and won’t impinge on WP:NCRIC (the article Variations in published cricket statistics explains it rather well). The ACS definitions are used certainly by CricketArchive (and that’s the quick way to check if a match is first-class or not) and, I think, by Cricinfo too; ‘’Wisden’’ mostly agrees, with the minor exceptions mentioned in the article cited above.

So I’d propose that we simply adopt the ACS definitions of what constitutes a first-class, List A or T20 match, and cut out all the fluff about Haygarth, Ashley-Cooper et al (which was there largely to justify a previous participant’s wish to extend notability for individual cricketers back into the 18th century, when the ACS definition goes back only to 1801 in England). That means accepting the definition as a “bright-line” go/nogo rule. So no pursing of the lips about some competitions in some countries: if the ACS and the ICC say a match is first-class, then it’s first-class, and similarly university games in England and Wales up to 2020 and ad hoc teams where appropriate. Top players appearing in these fixtures count the runs scored and wickets taken in these games in their personal averages, so we really shouldn’t cavil.

I’d then propose that the SNG says that any cricketer appearing in a match recognised (by the ACS and/or the national cricket associations through the ICC) as first-class, List A or T20 has the potential to be notable (and therefore to have an individual article) by dint of their appearance. BUT mere appearance on a scorecard is not enough to justify that potential: there has to be significant coverage on them as an individual, either by depth of coverage or by number and frequency of mention or through noteworthy deeds or incidents. So no specific threshold of one, five or 10 appearances: the threshold instead becomes coverage by sources other than scorecards and databases, and that links into GNG and SIGCOV.

What about the earlier 18th century cricketers? Well, my view is that they’re covered by the GNG, not the SNG, and that they won’t struggle to be justified under that if there’s multiple mentions in, say, Haygarth or Britcher. But they’re the tail, not the dog, and they’ve wagged us for too long. Johnlp (talk) 11:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your views Johnlp. I agree that the current definitions of cricket on here are messy and that taking the ACS's guide to what is in an isn't (which I'm guessing is used by CricketArchive and Cricinfo) is a good way to go, and much clearer to understand for the reader. In terms of your other proposal about a significant source it's very similar to a proposal going on at WP:NSPORTS so it may be policy anyway, but StickyWicket and Bobo192 have both opposed making a change like that, so not sure how popular it would be, as it would likely prejudice against non-recent players and non Anglocentric players. Although my list may bias slightly against the later due to the difficulty of providing sources, at least the less-recent players would be protected. The SNG is there to presume notability not show notability also, and the proposal basically takes away any power the SNG has for article creation as any article would have to pass GNG before being created anyway, but if this is a view that people like I'm happy to go with it in a way of moving the project forward. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If the threshold is to be significant coverage, we can simply scrap NCRIC altogether; after all it's purpose to provide a reliable indication that coverage exists and a search will be worthwhile. Without the requirement for SigCov, I strongly disagree with using any definition of FC/LA/T20 as they are the cause of many existent and deleted/redirected biographies on non-notable cricketers (e.g. minor counties LA and university FC players, and the aforementioned Pakistan mess – for which the ACS has horribly incomplete early records); it would also (again) completely disregard GNG, which NCRIC must now be calibrated to. Most importantly, it simply would not gain approval at NSPORT. Finally, OR is a content policy and of no concern when formulating the criteria of a notability guideline. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Wjemather, do you have a view on how the text could read around FC/List-A/T20 matches, or do we go with something similar to that I have suggested for NCRIC? Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:28, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I think the presumption of notability in the SNG remains, and article creation can remain unchanged. Personally, I have no problem with retaining permastubs indefinitely, since they indicate that "this person existed and did these things, but we don't know much about them", and that in itself is useful. But that isn't a popular view outside this project, so maybe we should suggest some time limit within which a "verification" should be done. The overall problem is, in my view, the woolliness of GNG and the folly of trying to compare notability across different fields of knowledge, more than the individual SNGs. But our SNG really doesn't help our cause. Johnlp (talk) 11:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That is one gripe I have with the NSPORTS discussion, people tend to be most upset about the stubs, but want to change notability guidelines and not stub guidelines to fix it. Obviously some SNGs need tightening, and what we're discussing will help the cricket one. A lot of the permastubs were seeing are in Pakistani, Sri Lankan, Zimbabwean and Minor counties/university cricketers and at least by removing them as notable from the SNG we should see less of these permastubs, although there may be a WP:BEFORE aspect where they can't be mass deleted as they were notable at time of creation. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is too broad for me to support. It's pretty clear from the ongoing AfDs that List A matches do not lend themselves to coverage. I'd start with listing the competitions which clearly lend themselves to coverage: the IPL, the Big Bash League, the World Cup, major international tests in the last 20 years at least (I know this is too recent, but I'm just stating the clearly obvious here), and then identify other competitions which might and start reviewing players from there. For instance, the Sheffield Shield might get coverage, but literally nobody goes to those games (except for the odd thrill-seeker who takes a day off work to sit in the MCG by themselves.) The County Championships do get coverage, but they might not get enough coverage for a player who played a single match in the second division, et cetera. SportingFlyer T·C 12:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The List-A players all at AfD now are all minor counties players who played in matches that were given List-A status that they shouldn't have been, as Wjemather mentions above. As far as I'm aware they don't actually pass NCRIC under it's current guise, but removing all List-A matches is broad as lots of the competitions in the list do bring significant coverage for those playing. I'm not sure what fan attendance has anything to do with it, its coverage is sources and we're not seeing Sheffield Shield players at AfD. I appreciate that any changes that are proposed here are unlikely to go far enough for you, but then on the other hand sweeping changes are unlikely to be accepted by those on the project, and this is at least working toward fixing the issue, and further changes can be made if there's still problems in the future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:46, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't have access to the same range of offline sources that others do, but my experience has been that finding significant coverage is a struggle for players who don't meet the following criteria: playing for a Test playing country (men & women) in any format; playing for a country with permanent ODI status in an ODI or T20; playing for any other country in a world finals; playing regularly for team with FC status in a top level domestic competition in England & Wales, Australia or New Zealand (and maybe India, but perhaps less so historically; and in other countries/regions only fairly recently – it's possible this is due to lack of availability of online archives, but I rather suspect it's simply because coverage of lesser players doesn't exist to the level it does in Eng/Aus/NZ); playing in one of the leading franchise T20 competitions (IPL, Big Bash, CPL, PSL, etc.) (and The Hundred if/when that happens); umpire on the ICC elite panel. Unfortunately, that's just how it is. In any case, our readers would be served better if players without significant coverage were detailed in substantial lists (not just lists of names), where the raw data (because that's virtually all we have) would be given context. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

That way mell be the case, a lot of List-A players playing in the UK/Australia/NZ/India and probably the West Indies will probably have played in either FC and/or T20 cricket as well meaning significant coverage could have come from those competitions. What you're suggesting is a drastic change to notable games in the cricket SNG and I have no idea if the main creators would be happy with that. StickyWicket states there's significant coverage for the Irish competitions for example. I think basically we're happy with the T20 aspect of the list (with the potential addition of the Hundred (I know vile) to male and women's guidelines and maybe the Euro T20 Slam given some of the players stated to play in it, when they both kick off) but both FC and List-A comps could do with some work, but there haven't been many comments on them apart from on Pakistan. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, a sea-change, and possibly an unpopular one. It would be great if we had evidence to expand. I would note that abundant coverage of competitions does not necessarily translate to coverage of players, and the farther back we go the more this is true. It's also important to differentiate between the franchise T20s and regular domestic T20s. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

This is true. I was able to find lots of coverage of the Zimbabwean comps but not much on the players so removed it. In terms of T20 I feel that all in my list would likely lead to presumed notability, having removed the more large number of teams domestic ones, but I'll look again at the SMA Trophy in India. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think cricketers who appeared in Vijay Hazare Trophy (with 38 teams, thiry-eight!) pass WP:GNG. Unless we can prove with 4 or 5 players that single appearance is good enough, we should remove this and other tournaments. I agree with wjemather, we should be very selective in start. Störm (talk) 04:28, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I thought it was a smaller tournament with 8 or so teams. I've removed it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd support changing it to the competitions identified by Wjemather above, and adding additional competitions as notability is demonstrated. It also does not mean other players cannot be notable on GNG grounds. Also, some List A competitions may be notable, but it's clear just because a List A match gets played, that doesn't mean those players will be notable. We have to be competitions-based instead of classification-based. SportingFlyer T·C 11:18, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

We'd have to have some form of WP:BEFORE policy set up, as this would likely lead to potentially hundreds maybe thousands of AfDs of cricketers with no GNG coverage in the article (although its likely it exists). My proposal was and is a competition based proposal and not classification based. If you read the changed I've made to the WP:OFFCRIC document and my edited version it shows that competitions I've removed from the original one. When I first suggested it I was hoping for more comments on what should be in/what shouldn't, but it's mainly being people saying yeah its a good idea but not expanding on it. Wjemather's list I doubt would too much different from what I've suggested, minus one or two tournaments. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:52, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support. This is why decisions of this nature should be in-house because we get users who come along who quite clearly haven't the first clue what they're talking about, then try to impose their will as policy. "It's pretty clear from the ongoing AfDs that List A matches do not lend themselves to coverage." Not true. English, Australian, New Zealand, West Indian, and Irish one-day tournaments all receive good levels of coverage. I can't comment on Asian teams as they will be in native language sources, though given the cricket mad nature of them I'd image there's quite a fair bit of coverage there too. Not sure about SA and Zimbabwe as I've never dedicated the time to working on cricket from those countries as my interest in mostly cricket in the British Isles, though I'd imagine in SA there's good coverage. "The Sheffield Shield might get coverage, but literally nobody goes to those games"; the Sheffield Shield gets lots of coverage. And how is not many people attending the game relevant in any way? Last year all matches were behind closed doors, does that mean because the attendance was 0 they are not notable?

In short Rugbyfan22 I support much of what you're suggesting. Though a few of points:

• Removing the World Cricket League from international competitions, I think that very much depends on which country it is. If the country is cricket mad like Nepal, I'd suggest a good case could be made for their players remaining as coverage in Nepalese sources will exist. Countries like UAE or USA, probably less so as cricket is a niche expat sport with very poor coverage in those countries. Also, while it can be argued they are international sportspeople, the ICC did not give international status to most matches in the WCL (Div 1 and 2 only I think).
• Umpires at domestic level (unless former players with widespread coverage) should have the number of matches they umpire in expanded. I recently went through the redlinked umpires in the 2000 NatWest Trophy article and could find very few who stood in more than one List A match. IMO they are not notable and literally no sources existed for them. So maybe that inclusion criteria needs to be widened?
• On List A and T20 matches, again perhaps this needs to be widened and done on a case-by-case basis. If a minor counties cricketer made one LA appearance, but played 20 years in minor counties and plenty of sources exist on the latter part of their career, I wouldn't be against including them.
• We should stick as rigidly as possible to the ICC definition of official cricket, so that the project matches inline with the sports governing body, and as mentioned by Johnlp, the ACS defintion before that.

That aside, it's a support from me. Happy to see men's and women's cricket being applied the same level of status. Our problem with sources also seems to stem largely from cricketers between 1945 to 1990. Older cricketers you can dig plenty up on in newspapers, books, alumni registers ect. For some reason coverage after the war to the 1990s (before the net) sucks, with even Wisden getting a little lazy with its obituaries. And when redirecting to lists, it would be nice for lists to be little more than a bog standard boring shopping list. Let's make them interactive: matches played, span, runs scored, average, high score, wickets taken, bowling average, best figures ect. StickyWicket (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments StickyWickets. On your bullets if feel that countries like Nepal now have ODI status and the more notable players are those that are going to play ODI or T20 cricket. Some others from the WCL days may have coverage, but then they'd pass GNG anyway. Obviously as these nations keep growing, their historical players might become more notable and then it could be discussed again in the future, but picking on choosing notable teams from the WCL would just add confusion. On umpires I've not really considered it. Wjemather suggested the ICC panel as a notability level but I don't know. A fair few with likely have been former players yes, but maybe again it would be better if it was a case-by-case basis. In terms of minor counties cricketers being notable, again fine if you pass GNG, and should be covered by the Players and umpires that have played in or officiated in other first-class, List A and T20 matches and competitions that are deemed not likely to lead to presumed notability may still be notable if they can be shown to pass the wider requirements of WP:GNG. section, unless I've completely misunderstood the point. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

@Rugbyfan22: what is your brief and neutral statement? At over 3,400 bytes, the statement above (from the {{rfc}} tag to the next timestamp) is far too long for Legobot (talk · contribs) to handle, and so it is not being shown correctly at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines. The RfC may also not be publicised through WP:FRS until a shorter statement is provided. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:23, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Redrose64, was unaware of the need for a simple question so apologies, the one that has been placed by another user since I last read this page is a perfectly acceptable one. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:42, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Neutral comment I'm not sure whether this will really help. A player who played one or a few games for a first class side a long time ago is unlikely to have attracted the same amount of coverage as players nowadays. I'd suggest a time cut-off for this (somewhere in the middle of the 20th century?). Even today, given that T20i status is granted to all international sides since 2019 (including some from nations whose cricket capabilities are, at best, dubious, and where coverage might likely be very scarce), I'm not convinced that a player from such a country who played one game would automatically gain the kind of coverage required... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:48, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

It will certainly filter out a lot of non-notable cricketers. None at AfD in the moment or over the past month would be notable under this updated criteria. In terms of older players that's recency bias. Coverage likely exists for these players also, but it might not be as accessible because it may well not be online. Notability isn't temporary. In terms of T20I status I've not seen any problems with creation on these types of articles either at AfD or people complaining about stubs on them, not sure other cricket editors would want to remove it either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:06, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The (current) fourth bullet point of CRIC addresses the T20I issue. I think it's reasonable to include that as a caveat for T20I/T20 appearances somehow - it makes it more complex and it probably needs to be linked to the first bullet point somehow - I remember this actually being discussed and thought about by people who know more about associate cricket. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:20, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support - thanks Rugbyfan for your work. I fully support WP:NCRIC proposals made above. Störm (talk) 21:35, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. Rugbyfan22 I think the ICC will be placing more emphasis on Nepal in the coming decade, so I can only assume their cricket well continue to gain traction. Picking and choosing what WCL countries to create articles on could get messy, I agree. Almost a blessing then that many of them don't have widespread coverage on their teams, let alone individual players. Namibia will be one exception, seeing as they played in South African domestic cricket for years. On umpires, tdefinitely on a case-by-case basis sounds sensible. Take Ron Lay, didn't have a playing career but did stand in 304 matches. StickyWicket (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Nepal now have ODI status don't they, so it's likely that the better and likely more notable players will play ODI cricket and pass from that. For me I think we should leave it out for now, and revisit in the future. We could add associate nations that subsequently received ODI status (so historical players from those nations are included) but that will then include USA, PNG, Oman and the UAE who we won't see much coverage for. I think it's probably just better to go on GNG for them, as if there's coverage then there can be an article. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:39, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

In terms of umpires obviously there's the ICC Elite Panel, and then case by case if they pass GNG, or if they've passed another part of the guidelines from their playing career. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

• Support Looking through all of this and I do agree that this is a right step in direction which will only be beneficial to the WP:CRIC community in large. HawkAussie (talk) 01:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Support. It seems to me that this project, more so than other sports projects, is in something of a stalemate situation over the issue of notability. The SNG has got to be fit for purpose so there can be no argument about notability if a bio meets the criteria. GNG should only be a consideration if the bio is definitely outside SNG. Having read this after the long drawn-out discussion at NSPORT, I support Rugbyfan22 because the proposal will certainly move things forward. Some fine-tuning may be needed to deal with exceptions but that can be done later. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
• Comment. I fully agree that a significant change is warranted, but I cannot support the one proposed here, specifically with regards to WP:NCRIC. The bar is simply still way to low with notability still judged to have been achieved by appearing in merely one match. Notability is simply not judged by merit, but by significant coverage in reliable secondary sources which do NOT fall under WP:ROUTINE. Merely appearing on one match card however is exactly what falls under WP:ROUTINE and thus this SNG should not use such a thing as a notability bar in any way.Tvx1 19:59, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

The one match/game played matches every other sports SNG at WP:NSPORTS. It appears your issue is likely with NSPORTS in general rather than just the cricket related guideline. I believe that with the proposals I've suggested that playing one match in one of the competitions specified will bring presumed coverage to the player playing the match. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tvx1: I think the point of this is that we've significantly cut down the competitions that we're including in CRIC. The ones that are left are the ones that, in our experience, there's a good chance that the majority of players will have some significant coverage. I've literally just written up a biography of a one match player from 1922 who has enough coverage for me to be reasonable secure that GNG is met easily - certainly much, much more easily than the majority of one appearance footballers, curlers, baseball players etc... from 1922. I think we're being very transparent that that's the point here - I was actually about to bring that very point up on Rugbyfan22's talk page as something we should be probably be super clear about.

That, as far as I can tell, is the point of having an SNG - to determine which people are likely to have enough coverage to suggest that we could write a biography about them. It doesn't guarantee it, but in the case of the competitions we're including it seems reasonable - and this is based on the sorts of things we've found at AfD over the past year or so (e.g. Australian's have coverage in general, often very good; Sri Lankans often don't; Minor Counties players probably don't etc...).

As Rugbyfan22 suggests, if it's reasonable in every other sport, then I think it's fair enough here - in fact, arguably we're being quite a lot more discriminating here than many sports are. Given the mess at NSPORTS where no changes to the over-arching guideline seems to ever be agreed upon, I'd say this has more chance of getting consensus than any changes to NSPORTS. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Correct, playing in one match in what we deem a notable competition doesn't mean someone is notable. It means that we believe that playing in said match will bring enough significant coverage to pass GNG so that an article can be made on the topic. This is and always has been the basis of SNGs for me. By filtering some of the competitions we're removing cricketers who by playing one match don't got significant coverage, and only get routine coverage in the form of a statistical entry and/or match report. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• Discussion has gone a little quiet, how are people feeling about this changes considering what's going on more widely at NSPORTS, and do people feel that we're close to some form of consensus on anything. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose as written - I'm concerned that the OFFCRIC proposal blurs the line between a project-level essay/advice page and the community-approved notability guideline. If the official guideline references OFFCRIC, then OFFCRIC should be treated as part of the guideline. This means that changes would have to be through community consensus with no vetting requirement by project participants. –dlthewave ☎ 15:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

OFFCRIC isn't technically part of the guideline, it's just a list of competitions that the Cricket WikiProject deem to likely lead to presumed notability. Currently all cricket competitions could be decided to be the highest level. It's just an aid in the same way that WP:FPL is to the association football guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dlthewave: Football has its list of fully professional leagues that it believes does the same thing. This isn't some niche sport where there are such a limited number of leagues that it's possible to include them all in the SNG text. I mean, if you want us to create the longest SNG in history then by all means insist on it. Otherwise, what alternative do you have? Other than simply saying that any FC, LA or T20 player are notable? We're trying to move away from that... Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@Blue Square Thing: The best option would be to promote an agreed-upon version of WP:CRIN to guideline status and include a short summary in NSPORTS. This would eliminate any confusion of what is and isn't part of the guideline. I would support this for any sport-specific guideline that currently has a supplemental advice page. –dlthewave ☎ 15:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW whether this proposal passes or not, the plan is to update CRIN anyway, as it's an absolute mess. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose Based on my experience at AfD, I don't think the list of competitions is narrowly tailored enough to assume players covered by this SNG will have met GNG, especially List A competitions. Even Sheffield Shield players don't necessarily receive GNG-qualifying coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 15:38, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• @SportingFlyer: can you suggest some articles that would meet this criteria that you feel aren't able to show notability? Seriously: I'm not convinced that we've not got this down to a fairly decent set leagues here. In terms of Shield cricketers, I took Tim Ward (cricketer) - an April 21 debutante. Easily meets GNG - there are sources beyond those quotes in the article. It's not close. People have shown at AfD recently that historically coverage is pretty reliable as well. I can't quickly find an Australian List A debutant for this season who hasn't played either FC or BBL, but I know very well that sources can be found for any LA debut in County Cricket

Is there a workable alternative to what we have here? Honestly, given the state of NSPORTS I'd say this is the best anyone will get - and if this fails we'll never move on from the "one FC, LA, T20 is enough" mindset. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I mean, if opposing this means that nothing changes, then supporting it is the right thing to do. I just want to see more work put in showing that 90%+ and ideally 99% of the people covered by the SNG meet GNG. I'm not sure Tim Ward does meet WP:GNG, as the best coverage of him in a BEFORE search appears primary (Cricket Tasmania/Cricket Australia), though the Mercury is paywalled and he does get mentioned there. I don't really have a problem with including the Shield, but my sense is that cricket has a "short tail" for player notability, where individual players, especially players who only make a few appearances or players in not-top-tier competitions, don't necessarily receive GNG-qualifying coverage, but the popular cricketers receive heaps. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I honestly don't think we'll get a better compromise that a range of people can get behind. It's usable. The alternative is either stay as we are or ditch any guidance and rely just on the GNG - and that opens the floodgates for second XI, under 19, school children and so on... Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe the second XI/U19/school children will be an issue as there are bits of the project which would clearly exclude those, but it might create the problem of users claiming the GNG is satisfied on really crappy coverage (as seen at a couple recent AfDs, claiming that a statistical blurb is GNG-qualifying coverage.) My preference would be a discussion sampling random players from each competition and basically running BEFORE searches to see if they pass GNG, especially on players with 1/5/10/20 matches played, which would admittedly take some work. SportingFlyer T·C 23:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I spent a few weeks working through a list of cricketers from one English county in December/January as part of one of the discussions at NSPORTS. It showed what you'd expect - but, given some of the rubbish I've seen with keep votes at AfD, I'd be happy that all of them at least marginally meet a suitable level of sourcing. Some of them aren't great, but they're all OK - i.e. go beyond the stats listings, even if a handful might be limited in how far they can go at present. We already struggle with under 19 articles at times, as does football I know. I could write one, with decent sourcing, now for a player with no senior appearances and could have done so for Nathan Gilchrist before he made his debut - plenty of sources, but what had he done that was actually notable at that stage? The Hugh Bernard article existed for ages before he made his senior debut as well - was his under 19 international career notable? ur guidelines say no, but I could have argued GNG says yes... Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. First of all, I support the suggested changes for the most part; however, I am concerned this RfC will be interpreted as acceptance that the criteria still present are sufficient predictors of GNG. I can foresee problems where people point to it as evidence that the community has analyzed the surviving criteria and judged it satisfactory, when what I think many of us are !voting on is the reduction in which leagues/tournaments meet SNG and not specific endorsement of those that remain. Basically, I share @SportingFlyer:'s concern that these rules of thumb, while better, may still not go far enough in accurately predicting GNG. I would also strongly request changes to the guidance include more explicit acknowledgement that meeting NCRIC does not suffice at AfDs if GNG SIGCOV can't be found. This would better reflect NSPORT's explicit instruction (best described in FAQs 1, 2, and 5) and greatly alleviate the confusion evident in many AfDs. JoelleJay (talk) 22:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• The reduction is based on the evidence that's come out of a whole pile of AfD over a period of time - at least five years. People who played in these tournaments tend to survive AfD.

The point re: GNG applies to anything that has NSPORTS as it's parent - so that's every sports SNG. There's no need to include it in just one SNG - it either has to be explicitly included in all or can be considered to be directly inherited from the parent. I've been making the argument for years at AfD and have been told I'm talking rubbish a number of times. I don't recall too many people rebutting that along the way... Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:22, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind making it explicit: in my experience it's not completely understood that NSPORTS is a SNG which ultimately is tailored to the GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In which case it needs to be explicit in all of them, not just CRIC. That needs to happen through NSPORTS I think - and I'm not sure that anyone there can agree on anything like this... Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:03, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

In cricket AfDs at the moment NCRIC is not being used as an acceptable reason for keeping the article in the majority of AfDs (some are still using it but it's mostly ignored), most of the time GNG is just being used. This differs from other AfDs such as Football or Olympics I've seen where saying "passes NFOOTY or NOLY" is fine for keeping an article kept. On some AfDs we've seen where there have multiple appearances keeping has been suggested on the likeliness of sources existing offline which again I don't think is just saying passes the SNG. My proposal also doesn't have to be the only change to the cricket guidelines to occur, it's just for improving it now, it can continue to be improved over the coming months and years, this could just be the first step. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• As it stands WP:NCRIC is a terrible predictor of the article having sufficient coverage to meet GNG and potentially actually build a real article out of it. My first choice is deprecate the guideline entirely and my second choice is any change that would tighten it. Like JoelleJay, "I would also strongly request changes to the guidance include more explicit acknowledgement that meeting NCRIC does not suffice at AfDs if GNG SIGCOV can't be found." This comment should not be interpreted as granting any support to NCRIC guideline existing or being trotted out at AfD in any form. (t · c) buidhe 07:59, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Depreciating the SNG will likely never be accepted by the members on here due to the effect it will have on articles of historic players and players from Asia. We're trying to tighten the guidelines here but people just seem committed to filibuster. I've also mentioned some stuff on using NCRIC at AfD in my comments above. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:06, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Given that there's been no support for depreciating anything at NSPORTS, I don't think that's likely. I mean, if you can build support for it then go ahead. You might want to think about curling as well - are you telling me that one appearance as an alternate at the Brier in the 20s is a certainty for sources? Then we can start on every other one.

I'm quite happy to include what's always been in CRIN and may, once upon a time, have been in NCRIC:

"Please note that the failure to meet these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; 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 that is on articles for deletion. But, the terms of WP:ATHLETE and WP:ORG are binding and these must be quoted if difficulty arises in an AfD discussion."

That could use tweakage, but it says what's important. As I've said above (in the green box) I think this should be more prominent. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I also wouldn't mind deprecating the old WP:NCRIC and allow it to be replaced with something better if this doesn't get up. Sports biographies are supposed to meet WP:GNG anyways. SportingFlyer T·C 12:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:SPORTSPERSON would presumably be the way to go. Now if only we had a list of "major amateur or professional competitions"... Fwiw the list we're proposing doesn't include anywhere near all the competitions that it could - as of now it excludes the Ranji Trophy, for instance. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Deprecating for now I'd likely imagine would mean deprecating altogether given how all other attempts to change the cricket guidelines have gone. I feel this is the closest we've got so far to changing them and the changes would be for the good. If there's still issues with non-notable creations then we can continue to tighten them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I agree - I don't think we'll get another option that has a chance of getting agreement. It's either this, what we have now or rely on WP:SPORTSPERSON without a list of competitions - which means that at every single AfD we can make the argument about whether this is or isn't a major competition depending on which definition someone puts forward, as well as what exactly GNG means this week. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Why is there this reluctance to explicitly clarify this SSG's relationship to GNG? The wording in CRIN, alongside being out of date, does nothing to disabuse editors of the misconception meeting NCRIC is a valid AfD argument. JoelleJay (talk) 16:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose per sportingflyer.4meter4 (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@4meter4: Can I get your views on which tournaments listed you feel aren't notable, can perhaps work on removing some more that way. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Let me give it some thought, and I will get back to you. The issue I see here overall, is that this proposal isn't really addressing the problem; which is simply that the SNG doesn't match GNG. Rather than having a lengthy list of complex guidelines that is really just designed to to continue ignoring GNG, it would be much better to have a simple clearcut guideline to support GNG. I'm not seeing how this proposal solves anything. 4meter4 (talk) 14:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

4meter4 Ok thanks, I disagree with your view and feel this list of competitions are well aligned to GNG. Certainly all the AfDs we're seeing are players that have played in competitions that have been removed. The NCRIC guideline in itself is quite short and precise, the list of competitions is just an aid in the same way that WP:FPL is to the football guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Comment. 4meter4 and SportingFlyer who are you both? You've never concerned yourselves with this project in the past and I don't see either of you here, I'd imagine the tournaments you're commenting on you have limited knowledge about, and the question I want to ask, is when this is all over will you be contributing to this project? If the answer is no, then this doesn't concern you. StickyWicket (talk) 14:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

How about you check your attitude. This is an open RFC relating to WP:NSPORTS, a wikipedia policy guideline, and not a WikiProject specific discussion. WP:OWN would seem to apply. Frankly, I don't think this proposal should have been made here per WP:DISCUSSFORK; because it feels like an extension of another ongoing earlier RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports); a fact which I chose not to bring up earlier because I chose to assume good faith. But based on your comment, it's starting to feel more like forum shopping. This discussion matters to me because I work regularly at AFD, and frequently review cricket related articles; thereby making notability policy pertinent to my contributions.4meter4 (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My plan was to get consensus amongst the WikiProject for changes first, before then taking it to NSPORTS, as I've previously done with a rugby proposal, albeit on a much smaller scale. I thought by getting a good idea from regular cricket editors would help as it is most important to them and they should have the biggest say as they will be the ones most effected by a change. I started the RfC to try and get the views of more cricket editors who don't regularly comment on the project, but another user then linked to NSPORTS. Many of the comments on NSPORTS though do state approval of the cricket guidelines being improved, and we're at least being constructive, whereas other SNGs that people feel are loose such as NOLY aren't doing anything as of yet. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:53, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I AGF with your intentions for this RFC, Rugbyfan22. I figured that was what you intended. However, I will point out to you that this is a policy based RFC, which means it is being broadcast at multiple place like the WP:Village Pump, to draw editors to this discussion. If you are going to start an RFC, than realize you are asking for broad input and not just one internal to the WikiProject. RFCs are designed on purpose for Wikipedia wide participation and not a niche collective of editors like a WikiProject. Your WikiProject members should be courteous to outside editors commenting here, because this is an RFC. In future, I would suggest not starting the RFC until after your project has internally discussed and crafted an RFC proposal together to bring to RFC. Best.4meter4 (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to be a member of a specific WikiProject in order to contribute to the project as a whole, and I do have a solid understanding of cricket, thanks. SportingFlyer T·C 20:51, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

We've made way more progress toward a compromise here than has been made over the last year+ whenever this has come up at NSPORTS. I'm very happy to have other people come here and make practical suggestions. Please do - everyone. When people do come here I'd rather they don't just tell us they don't like it though. Tell us what the heck they want in terms of a compromise. Not an extreme position (get rid of all SNGS/every player in the sport I like is notable) - that's not helpful. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I would like to see some more practical movement on sourcing requirements, even if its just requiring one source where the player is the main subject (and not just a statistical database or a mention(s) in a game review(s), but an actual prose source about the player). That's two less than we require for GNG.4meter4 (talk) 21:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 00:54, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Alfred Shaw

The Alfred Shaw article has serious referencing issues. Virtually the whole of the body of the article is unreferenced. Mjroots (talk) 09:17, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Wisden obituary; Notts profile - probably a good starting point. The bulk of the prose is from a long time ago and needs work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:37, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestion

So once all this notability stuff has blown over, I was thinking of ways to increase participation and engagement in the project and I was thinking about a newsletter of some description. Who thinks it is a good idea? And what would people like to see in it? StickyWicket (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It's a nice idea if you think it would help increase participation/gain enough readership to be worthwhile. How about with the way it's going cricket AfD of the month haha. No in all seriousness maybe an article each month on a cricketer who died/was involved in combat, or women's cricket article of the month to try and improve contributions to women's cricket. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll brainstorm some ideas over the coming months and put them here. I'm awful at art, so if anyone is good at drawing and graphics would like to design a logo that would be awesome! I'm also thinking about launching us on Twitter, Facebook and the cricket subreddit. StickyWicket (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Women's cricket would be nice. As might associate cricket. Grounds perhaps? Debuts? Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've seen a lot of cricket articles at GA and in DYK. There must be some at FA too. You could highlight one of these each time. Also, how about a history piece like the origin of Test cricket or the bodyline series? Perhaps a piece about grassroots cricket in a given country, which could expand on the associate member suggestion above. Plenty of photos too where possible. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:23, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Loving these ideas! On photos, perhaps a monthly photo competition – might encourage people to get out there and catch some great cricket shots! And perhaps a feature where someone contributes a report from a cricket match that they've attended (could be from major matches to local club cricket)? StickyWicket (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

We could start our own franchise cricket league in Dubai, that usually works. Jokes aside I think more on women’s cricket and emerging cricket. Maybe we could introduce a series of the month where we all try and get that series to good article status. CreativeNorth (talk) 12:35, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Great idea CreativeNorth. Maybe expand that into a contest too? StickyWicket (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if this might be an idea, but maybe we could try and go into the cricket subreddit to maybe get some help but I don't know how that will go down? HawkAussie (talk) 09:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's worth a try, it has 263,000 members. I'll set up an account tonight and if project members of good standing are interested in helping to run it, I can send them the login details? StickyWicket (talk) 17:03, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Pink Day ODI

As you may or may not know, South Africa host a pink day ODI once a year. Looking at the wiki there doesn’t seem to be an article about it. With sources here [4], here [5] and here [6]. Does the subject deserve its own article. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:50, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Why not start with a section on the team page and see what you can get - to be honest, this doesn't seem overly notable. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Are there articles on Jane McGrath Day of Ruth Strauss Day? If there are then maybe, if not then maybe something on the team page as BST says. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies @Blue Square Thing: @Rugbyfan22: so no then. Anyways, I hope we can all agree this and both the events that rugby fan mention are all great initiatives. CreativeNorth (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

100%, but it can be covered in specific team articles or articles for the specific people as it seems in Jane McGrath and Andrew Strauss. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:46, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Ruth Strauss Day is mentioned at Andrew Strauss#Life and career, and don't see that it needs separate article. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:48, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Cricket sources

Hi. I've started this page where I'll list all the reliable sources (which I know) relevant to cricket. This will help anyone who wants to expand cricket articles, but does not know where to find information. It will also help us in WP:BEFORE of AfDs and will decrease our excessive dependence on cricket databases. I've limited knowledge of offline cricket sources (anyone who has knowledge may expand it, please). Thanks. Störm (talk) 20:44, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm working alot behind the scenes redesigning certain elements of the project to hopefully have them all done by the summer, would be great to incorporate this into it as a virtual cricket library. StickyWicket (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

PS: I think Wikisource has a few cricket books on there. StickyWicket (talk) 08:16, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks AssociateAffiliate. There is a lot of free public access stuff (related to cricket) is available at Internet Archive (sifting will help many here). Störm (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Check Wikisource cricket content here. Störm (talk) 08:42, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Hello. I came across a link to Bibliography of cricket the other day in one of the history articles. It lacks a lot of publication details but you could get those from Amazon in the main. It does seem to be what you're looking for. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:43, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

It is helpful, but I want to add all the online links to websites (any language) where cricket-related content is available (plus offline sources which are mostly covered in 'Bibliography of cricket'). Störm (talk) 08:48, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the danger is that such a list could become unwieldy, as the number of reasonably authoritative and wide-ranging sources - especially books - would probably run into the hundreds. A couple of suggestions for books: Barclay's World of Cricket, which is probably still after some 30 or 40 years the most comprehensive encyclopaedia on the game; and Altham and Swanton's A History of Cricket, though its final edition was back in 1968. A search on Wikipedia will turn up multiple articles that use them as references and where you can find full publication details (both books ran to several editions). JH (talk page) 09:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been involved in publishing for a very long time and it is generally agreed that there are more books about cricket than any other sport. Football is way behind. You might be surprised to know that the second most published sport is chess (or at least it used to be). No Great Shaker (talk) 09:28, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Very surprised. As with curling, darts and dogging, chess isn't a sport. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:33, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

You try telling them folks up Portsdown Hill that dogging isn't a sport when the police vans arrive en-masse to nick them all :DDD StickyWicket (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd be more surprised if you told me that there were dozens of published books about it... Richard3120 (talk) 18:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh, I think dogging is definitely a sport, ha! All that physical exertion. Mind you, there's physical exertion in chess too – hitting the top of the clock and then going for a stroll and a chat while your opponent sits and thinks. I can never decide if snooker is a sport or not, but I'd say it's right on the threshold if physical activity is necessary. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

• For cricket books, something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Football/Booklist will be helpful. Störm (talk) 17:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Störm the booklist at the football project is much nicer and more compact than the one I've been starting on here! StickyWicket (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

No issue. The start is always the hardest. I hope things will get better for good. Störm (talk) 18:15, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Saudi cricket articles

I've posed a question at Teahouse, see Wikipedia:Teahouse#Saudi_cricket, and it was suggested to loop this project into the discussion. Any views? Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

I replied there, but will post here too. It was a copy-and-paste move which I've reverted, and I have started a move discussion about the name Talk:Saudi Cricket Centre#Requested move 6 April 2021. Please feel free to contribute. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 18:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Some redirection possibilities

Rather than take these to AfD, I'm suggesting redirects for the following English cricketers about whom we known nothing very much at all:

• J. V. Haden - Surrey 1882
• W. Wood (Surrey cricketer) - Surrey 1883
• W. H. Hill (Worcestershire cricketer) - Worcs 1900
• P. J. Morris - Worcs 1914

I wondered if anyone would be able to find anything at all on these chaps as I know that can happen at times. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

If a WP:BEFORE search hasn't brought anything up, then I think it's fine. There might be some newspaper coverage though but I don't have access to the archives. Both list pages for Surrey and Worcs are just names at this stage so perhaps a hatnote stating they played 1/however many games and that we don't know much else about them. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Footnotes for the handful of players needing them are best on this type of functional list imo. If these were lists of stats I wouldn't think about editing them - I find long stats lists almost totally unwieldy. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually wouldn't redirect JV Haden at this stage, 7 games in a season is quite a lot for the time, you'd think there'd be something out there for that many games. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

On the lists, I think the more statistical lists are the preferred way of going. Simple lists with just names and nothing else don't really offer the reader much, especially if it comes from a redirect. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends. Where almost every player on the list has their own article, then I think a list of names and dates is a much more preferable route to take - we know that we can click the link to get to the article. Where there are many players without articles, for whatever reason, I think there's more of a case to use either a pen portrait table (as the Bedfordshire list is) or possibly stats - but I find the tables of stats impenetrable and more or less impossible to use. And they're essentially a massive NOTSTATS bomb waiting to happen. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that for players in a list who don't have their own article all you need is a reference to their ESPNcricinfo or CricketArchive entry. JH (talk page) 15:26, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing about either Haden or Wood in David Lemmon's pretty comprehensive history of Surrey. If someone happens to have Wisden for the relevant years, I suppose there might be something there. And later editions might have their obituaries. But if we don't know when they died, searching for them would be pretty time-consuming. JH (talk page) 15:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks - Haden was the one I was most concerned about redirecting without anyone taking a look. I'll check The Times at some point, but they rarely have much detail about individuals. I was hoping someone would have book on one or both of the counties. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Three more:

• J. James (Northamptonshire cricketer) - 1906
• A. Clarke (Leicestershire cricketer) - 1902
• J. Hodgkinson (cricketer, 1882) - Derbyshire 1882

Same story pretty much. I'm really not finding anything on these blokes - seem to be professionals in the main (Haden certainly was) which, in the era they played in, doesn't help when it comes to finding stuff.

Not seeing anything in internet searches for those three, may be offline stuff but will be difficult to find not knowing any other details. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Whilst looking I noted that List of Leicestershire County Cricket Club players and List of Northamptonshire County Cricket Club players need updating - neither seems to have anything post 2019. The Northants one has appearances added as well, which strike me as very likely to be hideously out of date for modern chaps (where they've been included). If anyone has time and or knowledge it would help - I've tagged both and will get around to them where possible, but if we can't keep basic lists up to date I would worry about anything more statistical. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Add Surrey and Derbyshire to that list of lists that need updating. There's chance there may be 17 counties that need updating... Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Hampshire ones are up to date I know that much. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:30, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I usually update all the county lists that need it whenever the postman delivers the new Playfair annual. Which Royal Mail tells me will be today. Have done this for some years. So no need to fuss. Johnlp (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@Johnlp: Thank you - much appreciated. I've just tagged them all (sorry - just revert it when you get to it). Kent is up to date and Somerset and Middlesex seem to be. The Hants base list hasn't been updated since 2017, but there are individual lists for FC, LA and T20, all of which do seem to be updated. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The Hampshire one can probably be deleted, not sure there's a need for it with the FC, LA and T20 lists, it's not linked to the Hampshire wikipage either otherwise I would have updated it. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:31, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

It's linked from the "Lists of..." navbox, which is where I jumped in on it. I think it's helpful to have - acts as a useful cross reference. It shouldn't be too hard to work back from the detailed lists? Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:40, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I BOLDly redirected this, but if you think this is wrong I'll undo it and update this list myself. Just seems a bit overkill to have two separate lists especially when everything on this list is detailed in all the other lists. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Creation of task forces

Hi all. I'm working on restructuring certain parts of the project to match some of the more successful projects, such as the Military History Project. I noticed they have a lot of task forces for their topics, and it seems to work well in gathering link-minded users together to create and improve articles in a particular area. I've brainstormed a few task forces that people might like to create below:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Afghanistan cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Australia cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Associate cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket equipment
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket grounds
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket history
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Cricket umpires
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/England cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/India cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/IPL task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Ireland cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Laws of Cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Lists task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/New Zealand cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Pakistan cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/South Africa cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Sri Lanka cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/West Indies cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Zimbabwe cricket task force

The following task-forces already exist:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Bangladesh cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Scotland cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Somerset cricket task force
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket/Women's cricket task force

Feel free to add to this list and let me know if there's any task forces that already exist that I might have missed. Cheers. StickyWicket (talk) 12:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we need a task force for every country? I don't think we need one for Argentina, as there won't be enough article creation for it. Also, should they be "Afghan cricket task force" or "Afghnaistan cricket task force"- the currently existing ones use country name not the adjective. Also, IPL taskforce seems redundant as they have a separate WikiProject. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Agree on the Argentina point, with new potential guidelines no Argentine players will be notable (as far as I can work out) so not sure that, the Kenyan, Hong Kong, Canadian or Bermudan ones really warrant a task force. If the IPL has a separate WikiProject I don't see a need for that one either. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Happy to trim them down to ones where we there will be sufficient things to do. Perhaps keep them to the 12 Full Members, then have an Associates one for the rest? I didn't realise there was an IPL wikiproject! Didn't think separate Wikiprojects covering the same general topic were allowed. Take WWII, that's a task force of the history project. StickyWicket (talk) 15:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Indian Premier League yep, doesn't look very active though. Having one for associate members is a good idea, Argentina can be included in that. I agree with Joseph2302 that we should probably use full names instead of the adjectives as well. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 16:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've changed them to the full names and will update the open task list I'm working on to reflect the full names instead of the adjective. I wonder if the IPL wikiproject should be merged into us and become a task force of this project, seeing as it isn't all that active and has a fairly small worklist? StickyWicket (talk) 16:59, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

There also appears to be WikiProjects for another of other franchise tournaments. Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistan Super League, Wikipedia:WikiProject Lanka Premier League, Wikipedia:WikiProject Bangladesh Premier League. They look to have smaller numbers of members than the IPL one. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you think they should be brought under the umbrella of this project and turned into task forces? StickyWicket (talk) 19:12, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I've no idea on how the process about that would go about, whether it is something thats allowed and how much opposition from Project members of the 4 franchise tournaments we'll get, but for me they're the equivalent of any other task force, it's not a separate sport. The Premier League (football) doesn't have it's own WikiProject, although the NFL does have a separate one from American Football. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:20, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll drop them a message on their talk pages. They don't have many members or seem overly active, so shouldn't be too much opposition I hope! StickyWicket (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I would agree that all the IPL, BPL, LPL, PSL projects should just become task forces of WikiProject Cricket. That way we could better standardise their articles with other cricket articles (because historical the IPL articles have been a law unto themselves sometimes). The BPL project has 12 members not blocked or listed as inactive, PSL has 8 members that look active on Wiki, LPL has 12 members. But there's not many articles in the scopes of those projects, so would be better to merge them into the main cricket project in my opinion. we don't generally have separate WikiProjects for single events (apart from the Olympics, and gridiron football, because lots of the leagues are different variants of the sport). Joseph2302 (talk) 21:31, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we need any task forces, to be honest. If enough editors come together in support of one of those topics, I guess that's fair enough, but creating task forces for the sake of having task forces is a fool's errand, IMO. – PeeJay 10:54, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

They're there should members wish to have them, I've no objection to autonomous parts of the project channeling their efforts into a specific area. In the coming weeks I'll be launching accounts on Facebook, Twitter and reddit (the reddit account has already been created, if long-term project members want the login info drop me a message) in an effort to get more members. I'm going to message the T20 projects today RE merger. StickyWicket (talk) 10:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

By all means create social media accounts if you wish, but task forces should not be created before it has been established that there is either a desire or a need for them. What exactly would the creation of these task forces help us to do that the overall WikiProject falls short with right now? I worry that if we make the focus of the project too granular, we lose sight of the overall goal, which is to cover cricket as a whole as well as we can. – PeeJay 12:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Cricket AfDs

Hi guys, we've got 10 new AfDs which just appear to be an attack on Lugnuts' articles. The one with the fewest games has played 25 games for example. Please can people take a look at them when they have time. Thanks. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

That's absolutely ridiculous. One of them has 63 FC/LA appearances. Not one or two, but 63. The person is either being disruptive or hasn't much of a clue (i.e. stepping back and thinking 'will players with that many appearances likely have coverage', or coming here to ask for help finding sources. Mind boggling. StickyWicket (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

FWIW I've removed the Ranji Trophy as notable from my proposed list due to yesterdays AfD on recent Indian Ranji Trophy players and not being able to find coverage on some of them, but for the number of games that have been played in these examples there will be coverage, likely offline or in Hindi sources. I imagine if my proposal goes through we'll have to have someway of protecting articles created before the guidance change, otherwise we'll have articles up for deletion like this all the time. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

The attack on Lugnuts is weird as well given the cricket related ANI closed with the consensus that he was editing within the current guidelines, which have yet to change, so there is nothing wrong with any of the articles at AfD. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

It's very odd. Has to be disruptive because the sheer number of matches these people played is far in excess of what's required. StickyWicket (talk) 20:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

I have commented on their talkpage. These seem like bad faith nominations, especially when coupled with loads of deletions of Turkish places (also created by Lugnuts). Seems like a deletionist who's been reading ANI too much. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all. Believe it or not, I DO see the point made when it's a one-match wonder, but when someone's played 40, 50 or 60+ matches.... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

There is no point to "see". If a player has played one first-class match, he becomes a first-class cricketer and is so by definition notable. FieldOfWheat (talk) 08:17, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've also commented on that nominator's talk page because the AFDs being raised are ridiculous. The latest is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ağcakent, Aziziye for which absolutely no source search was done. But plenty of sources are now emerging at the AFD. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:23, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Page moves

Hi. There are a couple of pages moves you might be interested in:

• Talk:Cam_Hawkins#Requested_move_2_April_2021
• Talk:Steven_Finn_(cricketer)#Requested_move_7_April_2021

Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:36, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Possible page move/name confusion

Hi all, if anyone could help out on Talk:Helen Allan that would be great. Thanks, Mpk662 (talk) 11:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup article

Just to let the project know, there's been a note left at Talk:Cricket World Cup#FA concerns about whether the article is still FA standard or not. Would be good to get some cricket eyes on the article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Pages that need to be created

As a break from the endless deleting of them. Names not necessarily what they should be:

• Pakistan in Bangladesh ODI Match 1998/99
• NatWest International (Australia, Pakistan in England) 2004
• ICC Tri-Series (in West Indies) (Bermuda, Canada, Zimbabwe in West Indies) 2006
• England in Ireland ODI Match 2006
• Sri Lanka in Netherlands ODI Series 2006
• Kenya in Canada ODI Series 2006
• European Championship Division One (Denmark, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Scotland in Scotland) 2006
• Bangladesh in Kenya ODI Series 2006
• Bermuda in Canada ODI Series 2006
• ICC World Cricket League Americas Region Division One (in Canada) 2006

FieldOfWheat (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

FieldOfWheat, potential of a GA for the Ireland v England match as it was the first international between the two. StickyWicket (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Do we really need separate articles for "series" that are one match? Australia vs Pakistan 2004 [7] seems like it was effectively just a warm up match for the 2004 ICC Champions Trophy, I wouldn't think it's worthy of a "series" article about it. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. Similar articles on "tours" that have effectively been warm-up matches for a tournament have been deleted/redirected relatively recently (e.g. this, that). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:39, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Pakistani cricket team in Ireland in 2018 is a good example that even one-match series, particularly historically notable ones, can be good articles. StickyWicket (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Booklist

Hi all. Per a suggestion by Störm above regarding a booklist in a similar style to the football project booklist, I wonder if people would be willing to send me a list of the cricket books they own on my talk page just with the title, author(s), publisher, date, and ISBN. I can do the rest in cataloguing them; could you also indicate if it is okay for me to list your username under the entry to allow people to contact you for extracts from any books you list? Looking forward to any submissions! StickyWicket (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent work. It will certainly help people here. I'll try to add what I can. Thanks again. Störm (talk) 18:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)