Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 39

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

RfC on NCRIC

Should the current WP:NCRIC section be removed? Fram (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC) It appears that WP:NCRIC, which has long been disputed, no longer represents the consensus of which cricket players should be considered notable. AfDs for people who technically meet NCRIC end in delete anyway, and the above discussion (Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Cricket) and previously in August Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 37#Recent English FC cricketers fail WP:GNG / WP:BIO show widespread (though far from unanimous) displeasure with NCRIC. Discussion about a replacement may be tough, but that doesn't mean that we should keep a SNG which doesn't have consensus and which includes too many people who don't meet the WP:GNG basic requirements.

So the proposal is to remove NCRIC from NSPORTS completely now. People are then free to establish a consensus for a new, as yet unwritten guideline later if they want of course. Many sports have no entry in NSPORTS, many other groups of people or subjects have no SNG either: this doesn't mean that cricketers no longer warrant articles, just that they should be judged against the GNG and would need indepth sourcing beyond the cricket databases. Fram (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Support as nom. Fram (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Tear down a notability section for a major international sport and leave behind a question mark? There's no sense in removing a key policy section and end up leaving a big black hole for more dubious articles to be created. If you feel it needs changing, then draft such a guideline and then put that to RFC for replacing the current one. Not just go for the nuclear option of just bludgeoning it out of NSPORT with nothing to cover it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • How would this allow for "more dubious articles to be created"? It will probably lead to less, not more articles: at the moment, every cricketer who doesn't meet NCRIC but who meets the GNG is allowed to have an article anyway, which stays the same. On the other hand, cricketers who don't meet the GNG but meet NCRIC can now have an article, but not when NCRIC gets removed. So I don't see how this proposal can lead to your conclusion. Fram (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose it may need a rewrite, but total removal is not the solution. If you delete this one, you'll probably end up deleting most of the NSPORTS for similar reasons. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    It's never an automatic WP:ALLORNOTHING.—Bagumba (talk) 10:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Not an automatic one, but maybe a manual one. Either way, fixing it is the solution rather than removing it. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - a problem cannot be solved without a solution. Nobody has offered a single, universally applicable, workable solution. Bobo. 10:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • The WP:GNG is the solution. This is the "universally applicable" guideline we use for countless other topics. Fram (talk) 10:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
      • In that case this conversation needs to happen with every other sporting Wikiproject. Every other sporting Wikiproject runs to the same inclusion criteria. Why is it only the cricket project under attack? Bobo. 10:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment An SNG can be helpful, but is not required. For example, WP:PORNBIO was removed and not replaced. (Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)/Archive_2019#PORNBIO). WP:GNG can always be applied.—Bagumba (talk) 10:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Wasn’t PORNBIO removed in an attempt to have less pornographic actresses on Wikipedia? The effect seems profound, even many non-stub articles deleted (I nominated half a dozen myself in the past couple months). That may be the desired effect here, but it’s worth pointing out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support- This guideline clearly does not enjoy the support of the community, and that is a good thing because it promotes the robotic creation of endless, virtually empty microstubs relying on a handful of shaky sources. Furthermore, it is frequently (and deliberately) misrepresented not as a temporary and rebuttable presumption that the articles can be properly sourced, but a permanent and unappealable exemption from WP:V and WP:N. Any page or guideline that encourages people to tell little fibs while also flooding the encyclopedia with an endless stream of sewage is unambiguously bad, so it ought to be deprecated and marked as a historical failure. Reyk YO! 10:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Fibs? Such as? Bobo. 10:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Raphick Jumadeen. There is an article, selected at random, which right now, contains only references to CI and CA, and a random piece of WP:TRIVIA. Why are articles like this not being looked at as well? But this man has twelve Test appearances. None of you would ever put articles like this up for deletion because he has 12 Test appearances and 99 first-class appearances. Bobo. 10:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: Adrian Griffith (cricketer). Another article selected at random with nothing but bare statistical sources and information. If those so keen to delete would be so keen as to expand articles, there would be no problem. Bobo. 10:57, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Notability depends on what is available, not on what is in the article. Adrian Griffith probably is notable at first glance and could easily be expanded, he is the "umpires and referees administration manager at the ICC"[1]. I don't see how the existence of such articles show "there is no problem": the problem is that among the thousands of cricketstubs that meet NCRIC, there are many (though a minority) which are not expandable with info from such actual indepth sources. If an SNG protects too many articles that don't meet the GNG, then there is a problem, and changing or removing that SNG is then the solution. SNGs and the GNG are about available sourcing, not about the sourcing in the articles at the moment. Articles only source to e.g. cricinfo would not be blanket deletable, people nominating them for deletion should still first check whether the person is notable, per WP:BEFORE. The current state of articles has no bearing on this SNG discussion: the discrepancy between the potential final state of these articles and the GNG is what counts. Fram (talk) 11:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It does strike me as weird reasoning. To paraphrase: "There's a bunch of crappy articles on notable people amongst all the crappy articles on non-notable people, because we were too busy writing python scripts to scrape Cricinfo to think about doing a proper job, so now it's your responsibility to fix the bad-but-notable ones before you are allowed to point out that microstubs about non-notable people have no place here." This argument is 1) a non-sequitur, 2) an arrogant claim on other peoples' time, and 3) probably an intentional effort to derail. Reyk YO! 12:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Derail, no. There are enough issues with articles on much more notable individuals than the ones we are currently discussing. We should fix these first, then complain. Bobo. 13:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If we take an holistic view, there simply are no sources with which to expand the vast numbers of these articles. Cherry picking a few for which sources likely exist and therefore could potentially be expanded is unhelpful. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support; the current wording is an extremely poor and a very unreliable guide to meeting GNG (which is supposed to be it's primary function: help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline). At the lower end (towards the domestic one match threshold), almost all passes of NCRIC can only be referenced from statistical databases with very wide scopes, which does not meet SPORTBASIC requirements. As written NCRIC describes what the author(s) decided should be notable without any regard for the likely existence of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Outside of major cricketing nations, coverage of cricket is minimal to non-existent and it is fantasy to presume sufficient coverage exists, even of international players, in these countries. The vast majority of umpires will not be notable for their umpiring, but primarily for their earlier playing career, so the suggestion that most could meet GNG based on standing in one (or even a few) matches is also fantasy. This guideline fundamentally fails in it's principal function and for years has been facilitating the factory-like production of thousands of one or two line perma-stubs that fail basic article standards. It should be removed. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:19, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are six articles in Category:Zimbabwe Test cricketers with zero references or external links. Bobo. 11:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - There are 27 articles in Category:Zimbabwe Test cricketers with references only to CA or CI. Bobo. 11:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • 26 now. I added a reference to Keegan Meth who is clearly notable. Just because they are unsourced or sourced only to CA/CI doesn't mean there's a lack of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 11:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Apparently this isn't the case these days... Bobo. 11:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You're persistence in attacking the straw man is unhelpful. Continuing to do so knowingly is disruptive. So again – sourcing in itself (or infoboxes, or references sections, etc.) is not the issue; the issue is the faulty presumption of the existence of sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Not really. I'm just pointing out that if a problem of "sourcing" is to be claimed, these can be easily fixed. Unless they can't... Bobo. 13:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose (address this below) This is a very, very bad proposal which does not address the problem which needs to be addressed, namely that some cricketers who have made a nominal number of appearances under WP:NCRIC don't always pass WP:GNG. This is not a problem unique to cricket, and one that can be solved easily at AfD as long as you don't have voters with "Keep, passes NSPORT" votes and who look at the sources accurately, which has been a problem for a long time, and is not a problem unique to sports. I don't support keeping unsourceable stubs, but the fact that the entire SNG itself is bad and needs to be thrown out is just wrong. SportingFlyer T·C 11:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Please identify a part of NCRIC that is not problematic due to it's excessively wide scope. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    I don't think its scope is excessively wide at all, though I might qualify it better since it's a bit vague. All sports SNGs allow for someone who has played one match at the highest level, which is really the problem we're trying to fix here. As an aside, Division Six seems too low as well, but I haven't done research on that. SportingFlyer T·C 14:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose While NCRIC appears to be too lax to someone who doesn't really know much about cricket, I think scrapping it altogether would be a bad move as I suspect any new proposal would be unlikely to gain consensus due to the distaste there seems to be nowadays for SNGs (so it would effectively be gone for good). I would suggest instead that some proposed notability criteria are put forward in a descending hierarchy (starting with a senior international appearance for a test nation or in the World Cup) and they are !voted on individually to get agreement on where an appropriate cutoff should be. Number 57 12:22, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Why do you think such voting wouldbe succesful when an SNG is still in place, but unsuccesful when no SNG is in place? Why would the voting go any different? Fram (talk) 12:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
      • Because there seems to be so much opposition to SNGs these days, I think even a much tighter proposed guideline would be rejected if brought back simply on principle. The alternative is to accept the SNG exists but to go through its hierarchy, which I suspect some editors are less likely to be motivated to oppose. Number 57 13:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose - if there are issues with NCRCIC then resolve them; removing completely will be carnage. GiantSnowman 12:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Every statement of NCRIC is a problem. There is nothing worthwhile to salvage. Any "carnage" will be a result of articles that should not have been created, not removal of the guideline – these articles still need to be dealt with (by deletion or merging to lists) either way. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    You really want to bombard AFD with cricket articles if this proposal passes? Mind you, if we use the grounds of the proposal, we may as well delete the whole of NSPORTS if we are saying GNG is primary rather than secondary. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    GNG is primary; the very purpose of NSPORTS is to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline. NCRIC is way out of line with this goal. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support The defacto situation is that only the mechanics of the SNG's are used; their wording relating to GNG is ignored, and they are a bypass of GNG. Also that the sports SNG sets the bar too low in general. Eliminating even a few percent of the bypasses in the sport SNG makes the overall sports SNG problem a few percent smaller and maybe a start at fixing it overall. North8000 (talk) 13:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per CofE, Bobo, Joseph, etc. Cricket has the same inclusion criteria as American football, football (soccer), Australian rules football, baseball, basketball, ice hockey, rugby league and the Olympics. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:38, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Somewhat similar as those, perhaps. The same, clearly not. Not that it matters either way: NCRIC has unwanted results, the inclusion of too many players who don't meet the GNG but get created and !voted "keep" anyway because they meet NCRIC. If the same applies to other SNGs, feel free to propose these for removal or change as well. But don't keep one bad rule because there may or may not be other bad rules as well. Fram (talk) 13:46, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
What is an "unwanted result"? Why is certain knowledge good and certain knowledge bad? Bobo. 16:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
No, they are exactly the same, and therefore no need to change any of them, or start proposals to remove them one by one. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't think there are "too many" players, I think we've just identified a few. What we need is a clear addition to WP:NSPORTS that says players that barely meet a sports SNG guideline must still meet GNG, and we should give it an acronym or shortcut so people take it seriously at AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 14:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't see how the criteria for e.g. the Olympics and those for cricket can be considered "exactly the same", but I don't think this is a useful discussion to pursue. With the Olympics, we have very few articles which technically meet the rules but aren't notable anyway (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franzen (cyclist) for an AfD for some of these which I started, which you opposed, and which ended in delete anyway); for cricket, this seems a lot more common. Plus other differences, e.g. the Olympics being by default international and (as competition) top level, while NCRIC includes domestic competitions as well, and so on. But once again, in the end these "otherstuffexists" arguments are hardly important. If you disagree with the guideline for another sport or for sports in general, feel free to start a discussion or RfC on these. Fram (talk) 14:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
There's no need to start other RfCs on the other sports, as they are the same, and robust enough. And by that, I mean the one-start criteria, which applies to Olympians too. Of course NCRIC includes domestic competitions, as do the other sports I listed above (football, Aussie rules, etc, etc). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
As I have mentioned elsewhere, "one start at the highest level" criteria gives us a reliable presumption of notability in some sports because the volume of substantial coverage generated below/before that level is so great; in all honesty, cricket is simply not one of those sports. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
But it is. And you don't need to badger everyone that doesn't agree with you here. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
It's not that the coverage of cricket is "not great" - we are in fact arguing the opposite. It is (apparently) of too large scope, and this needs to be censored for fear that it upsets people. What makes people so afraid of facts? Bobo. 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
For our purposes here, wide-scope databases do not count as coverage and there is little (to nothing) else. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Which makes me ask, what are we attempting to achieve as a project? Bobo. 16:48, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The individual sport-specific notability guidelines started from the same place (the original guidance for athletes), but were then split up on a per-sport basis in order to tailor better predictors of coverage suitable for meeting the general notability guideline for each sport. Some have undergone greater revision and adjustment over the years than others (like all things in English Wikipedia, it generally depends on how many editors are interested in the area and in making changes). isaacl (talk) 19:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Seems to me that NCRIC is flawed in two ways. Firstly it's much too loose and, worse, the looseness has been seen as an excuse for creating large number of articles with no evidence that the player is notable. Secondly, it fails the basic requirement of a sports notability criteria, in that it's not 100% clear whether someone passes or not. "played at the highest international or domestic level"? What does that mean? Does that include Yorkshire v Oxford University in 1900 (or whatever). Surely "first-class" is the appropriate vehicle here (+lista, important, etc), something that the ACS has perfectly well defined, worldwide (at least for the last 150 years or so). As noted elsewhere, life goes on for sports without any notability guidelines. Nigej (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose If you think the guidelines should be revised, revise them, don't delete them entirely. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    No, I think they can safely be removed, and that no replacement is needed. Discussions over the years have not lead to improved cricket guidelines, and I see no reason to wait any longer when the GNG will do the job. However (and that's what I wanted to indicate in my opening statement), removing it now doesn't mean "and never create one again": if there is afterwards an agreement, a consensus, for a new, better NCRIC, then fine. Perhaps this removal will set this in motion, perhaps the consensus will be that no new NCRIC is needed and GNG suffices, I don't know. Personally, I don't see the need for NCRIC as it is, nor a smooth way to a better one, so my preference is simply removing it. Fram (talk) 16:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. It's the experience of many editors, me included, that this guideline has resulted in SNG-"passing" and GNG/N-failing articles that are deleted at AfD. While this can happen with any SNG, its rate with NCRIC is unacceptably high. The conclusion is that the guideline misleads rather than informs about the notability of players and as such does more harm than good to the project. As others have said above, there is precedent for removing SNGs without an immediate replacement and no "carnage" has come out of that. If there is no workable criteria, then simply default to GNG. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The notability guidelines of CRIN are identical to every other sport. One appearance at the top level. Why is it only CRIN that is under investigation/scrutiny? Bobo. 16:20, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
However, each sport is different and discussing all at the same time in not sensible. 1 first-class cricket match does not equate to 1 MLB appearance. Nigej (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
1 = 1. Yes it does. Bobo. 16:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
True but 1 apple does not equal 1 pear (or is it oranges). Nigej (talk) 16:32, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Then it's not just CRIN which is the problem. Bobo. 16:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it is just NCRIC we are discussing here (CRIN is an essay with no standing). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Why do we have to go through lengths to explain to people the parameters behind notability rquirements while none of the other sporting projects feel the need to do so? Because it's the very people who are supposed to be fostering the project and taking care of it who are trying to destroy it. Bobo. 16:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Let's explore that notion originally posited shall we. So why is 1 MLB appearance not equal to 1 first class appearance? Why is 1 appearance at the top level of a sport mostly played in North America seemingly "superior" and more notable to 1 appearance at the top level of a sport played worldwide? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Because systemic bias. Simple. Bobo. 16:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Because different leagues in different sports have different levels of coverage. Some more, some less. Nigej (talk) 16:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Cricket probably has the most of all these sports, going back over 300 years, with as much information as you would include anyway. Any coverage beyond statistical coverage is just meaningless bumf. Bobo. 16:58, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Both Bobo192 and Nigej haven't correctly identified the baseball/cricket analogy. WP:NBASE is straightforward because there's really four (really, two in practice) leagues major enough in the entire world where you'd assume a player has been adequately covered - the two US MLB leagues and the two Japanese leagues. The problem with cricket is that the criteria isn't as clear cut, largely because cricket as a sport has one of the longest histories. Because the criteria isn't as clear-cut, the "middle zone" of notability - what is first class, is this a pass - isn't as easy to determine. What's absolutely clear is that there is some sort of standard for cricket that's clear that you'll be notable if you pass from looking at the Zimbabwe articles. What we need to do is clarify that middle zone somehow, but that's for a different RfC. SportingFlyer T·C 17:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't understand your point. First class cricket is perfectly well defined (well back into the 19th century), except for a handful of disputed matches. Nigej (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)That can easily be sorted. Internationals, or top level domestic competition in a Test playing country. For England for example: County Championship, Royal London One Day Cup and T20 Blast (and their antedates). Clear cut and sorted. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Where did that list we compiled precisely for this purpose, disappear to? Bobo. 17:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Nigej, WP:NCRIC does not include the words "first class." It does use judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. SportingFlyer T·C 17:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I know. You missed my first point above. "first class" is well defined. "highest international or domestic level" is decidedly vague. Nigej (talk) 17:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it's people's unwillingness to understand this basic information which has put us where we are as a project. Precisely why we need to find that list and make it clear. That's not our fault as a project... Bobo. 17:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
It is worth noting that when it was first written NCRIC said "has appeared in at least one first-class or List A match as a player" (this is the July 2007 version fwiw - T20 is technically a form of List A cricket iirc). It got changed - I think without any discussion - to its deliberately vague wording. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
We have done as much as possible in recent times to help make the subject-specific criteria as simple and clear-cut as possible. If we haven't, ask us to clarify it. In the appropriate place. If the problem is with interpretation of the criteria, ask us to clarify it. We are probably willing to do so. Bobo. 17:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Thankfully there is no "middle zone". Major cricket = yes, not major cricket = no. If the question you're asking is, "Please can you clarify what this means", then this is not a conversation to happen here. Bobo. 17:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Except for the fact there are grey areas in the middle. For example, until recently First Class cricket applied to MCC university matches which are a long way below County Championship level. First Class also applies to countless historical matches of highly questionable significance or standard. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
In that case, all we need to do is to have that explicitly stated in parameters we can all apply. Bobo. 19:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I think those matches are likely excluded by the language in WP:NCRIC. SportingFlyer T·C 20:02, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The last time I saw NCRIC discussed largely was a massive WT:N discussion, which was the predecessor to the current massive WT:N discussion. In it, an article titled Bellingham Graham with the content Special:Permalink/937542355, was cited multiples times as an example of a "one game superstar" / permastub article which should be deleted, an example of NCRIC/NSPORT failing the encyclopaedia and being a bad notability guideline. I discussed this with Nick on IRC, who, some research later, ended up creating what is now Sir Bellingham Reginald Graham, 7th Baronet. Oh the irony. And to think this article would've been deleted and nobody would've thought twice of creating this article again. I now feel WP:NOTPAPER applies, and think removing it completely is destructive if not done without a suitable replacement which addresses its deficiencies but does no more. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Of course, your argument is one for having articles on everyone on the off chance that notability emerges for something entirely different from the reasons for original creation – your example being of someone notable for reasons entirely other than cricket (I certainly hope you are not suggesting that he was notable as a cricketer). wjematherplease leave a message... 19:25, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    My argument is that he met notability guidelines at the time and turned out to meet more notability guidelines. Personally, I think notability’s only purpose is to determine if we can write an article that adheres to the core content policies. It is not possible to write an article that meets WP:V/NOR on your average YouTuber, startup founder or “upcoming rapper”. It is, however, possible to write a verifiable, sourced article with no original research on a person meeting NCRIC, which includes a current stub, and I am yet to see evidence of AfD failing in this regard whilst we have a problematic article live. Stubs are perfectly acceptable and helpful articles, many times, when finding an article to expand, we start with a stub. In the case of the article I cite, in its stub form, I do not see any violation of our core content policies in its body. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose As per Bobo and Lugnuts. Cricket has the same notability guidelines as most other major sports. Revisit them maybe, but don't delete them. CreativeNorth (talk) 19:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose for now. I'm convinced by ProcrastinatingReader's argument above and by others who have argued that we should first attempt to simplify (it's not) and tighten up the wording. This will require compromise. If that fails, then I'd be happy to scrap it as it's not currently good enough. In the discussion above this one I asked to be pinged when someone had come up with a suitable compromise. That stands - I've made my suggestions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Makes me wonder just how many of those who want to change CRIN, for better or worse, have actually contributed anything remotely constructive to the cricket project, by means of new articles or significant expansions? My guess would be very few. StickyWicket (talk) 19:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The answer is simple. None of them. If any of them had contributed enough to the project it would be completed by now and we wouldn't need to have this conversation. Bobo. 19:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
I started on the cricket project here, many moons ago, but switched after a disagreement with another editor, which drove me elsewhere (see my home page for articles created). Have a cricket book to my name too, for what its worth. Sold most of my cricket book collection awhile back, although many of the ACS publications went in the recycling. Life moves on (sigh). Nigej (talk) 19:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment A note to those who asked the fair question about "played at the highest international or domestic level". Earlier in the year, I started to collate a list based on the defintions made by the International Cricket Council (ICC). Full definitions of first-class, List A and Twenty20 cricket are explained by the ICC, and used as a source on that page. This is designed to be a list that works with WP:NCRIC, as a standalone page due to its length, very much like the list of fully professional leagues that the Football Project maintains. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 19:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Cheers Lugnuts, that was the list I was looking for. Bobo. 19:39, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Lugnuts et al. If NCRIC is irreparably broken then so are all the other major sport SNGs, as their basic arguments are essentially identical - played at the "highest level". In the case of cricket, however, the "highest level" is actually quite precisely defined, unlike NFOOTY and some others. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Frankly, if anyone started mass-nominating participants from any other competitive team sport, who met the subject-specific guideline, they would be topic-banned for disruption. Bobo. 20:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm still of the view that trying to come up with a list of matches somewhat tighter than "first class" is not useful. For one thing, no one's ever tried it, there is no such concept in the cricket universe. It is also worth noting that even if we limit English cricket to the county championship, because the counties were genuinely county-based there was huge disparity in the standard of the teams. Somerset famously beat Yorkshire in the early 1900s (I forget when) but then didn't beat them again for another 50 years or so. So (if we are considering the standard of players) Yorkshire players of the era were, on average, much better than Somerset players. Somerset (for instance) were so tight for money that even in county matches they would play a weak amateur (who was free) rather than pay £8 (or whatever) to a better professional. But, of course, we're not considering the standard of the players, only coverage. MCC, University players, etc did get a large amount of coverage, so on that basis, there is little reason to exclude them above those that played in county championship matches. Historically there wasn't that much difference. Nigej (talk) 20:24, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
May 21 - 22 1903, beat them again on August 19 - 21, 1959. But I got that information from CA, so it might be wrong. Apparently. Bobo. 20:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Cheers. I used to know these things. Actually CA is the most reliable thing out there. Used to have some contact with Philip Bailey (statistician). Odd character but obsessed with accuracy. Nigej (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry. I was being sarcasmagorical. That doesn't come across well on the Internet! Who knows - maybe this whole exercise is an advanced lesson in sarcasm. Bobo. 20:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Probably. Best not to take anything too seriously. Nigej (talk) 20:54, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Certainly hard to take the cricket Wikiproject seriously anymore... Bobo. 21:00, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose If there are issues; solve them. Not deleting them. That makes Wikipedia better in the end. I see too often the same editors saying to delete it again and agains (not people into cricket or even sports); not being open for improvements. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment I think that comparison to other sports is an Wikipedia:Other stuff exists type argument and not valid in this case. The sports SNG is continuously brought up as the as the one that sets the bar too low...in what other profession does "did it for a living for one day" qualify as wp:notability? Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    That's an issue to be taken up with every sporting project other than cricket, which have no problem following this simple-to-understand rule. Bobo. 21:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Bobo192 The current proposal is not unique to simply cricket. Over the last several years, nearly all NSPORTS SNGS have been slowly getting more strictly defined and refined. I would actually argue NCRIC is behind in that regard. Other popular regionals sports such as WP:NHOCKEY, WP:NRU, WP:NBASE, and WP:NBASKETBALL have all had the more generic terms replaced with explicit league or match requirements. WP:NFOOTY is just about the only one left with the "top level" type phrasing, and that gets brought every other month here for possibly being too low a bar. Yosemiter (talk) 22:21, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Where does it specify the subject-specific inclusion guidelines for these sports and what are they? Bobo. 22:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Here we are:
    One game or more in the NHL.
    Played a game for a team in a professional rugby competition.
    Have played in one basketball game in [insert leagues here]
    Have played at least one baseball game in [insert leagues here].
    Have played in at least one game in the following American football competitions such as [insert leagues here].
    Yeah. Next we need to decide which of the cricketing competitions we randomly decide are not top level even though they are. Bobo. 22:36, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Which, other than NRU (an SNG I have tried and failed to get a consensus on), all are far more explicit than ... at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level. I'm just pointing out this is not a personal attack on NCRIC, it is a continued refinement process thru WP:N in general and NSPORTS specifically. Yosemiter (talk) 22:52, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    But that's a good thing - that exactly defines the borders. I like that. That's why any new guidelines on the cricket project - which are different from the current ones - have to be exactly defined and universally applicable. Bobo. 22:55, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Bobo192: So you agree that NCRIC should be more refined and explicit? Because your previous statements seem to imply that you think it is fine the way it is. I don't necessarily agree with throwing out the entire SNG, but it would help it the cricket experts suggested the actual explicit list that it should have, and why that list implies GNG. My original statement was just countering your That's an issue to be taken up with every sporting project other than cricket as we clearly have been taking it up with each sport over time. Observation says NCRIC is not the first to get this scrutiny or criticism and it will not be the last. Yosemiter (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Not more exclusionist, so to speak. More explicit. Better explained as per precisely which leagues and which cups confer notability specifically according to CRIN. Which are precisely the ones we've been working to all along. Bobo. 23:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    OSE is often misquoted. This isn’t a deletion debate on interpreting policy (and even in that context this would be valid - from experience I can say it has been valid many times at TfD), rather a policy discussion on changing a policy. Further, the most relevant sentence may well be This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else. It is valid to say other NSPORT guidelines do it a certain way, and the rebuttal put forth above is that it’s okay to pick part one at a time in hopes for a larger change in due course. That is not a good defence imo, and I agree with the idea that, as the arguments against NCRIC are barely inherent to NCRIC but rather a larger attempt to break a brick within NSPORT, that it should be discussed as one unit for the change itself. If that fails, well, it will be because the community willed it so. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Fram. Until an appropriate and limited SNG can be drafted (one where we can be satisfied that > 90% of the participants pass WP:GNG), deleting the current overly lenient standard seems like the best course of action. Otherwise, the onslaught of one-sentence sub-stubs, lacking any meaningful narrative content, will continue unabated. Until such an appropriate SNG is formulated and approved, GNG will operate as it does for most Wikipedia subjects. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    We're waiting for someone who disagrees with the current SNG to provide a new one, then we might take this conversation seriously. And so we have been for the last 16 years. Saying "this is a problem" without being willing to provide a logical solution is a waste of time. Bobo. 22:08, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Nice try at shifting the blame. It is clear to even the non-cricket folks that the current standard is broken. However, the burden should be on cricket folks, rather than non-cricket folks, to formulate a guideline that operates as a meaningful indicator of GNG compliance. The fact that 16 years have passed without the cricket folks fulfilling this obligation only serves to justify the more drastic approach proposed by Fram. Hopefully, even when this RfC fails, it will at least have served a positive role in finally lighting the fire on the cricket project to tighten things up. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Right. And it's not as though alternatives haven't been proposed. I have long suggested that tables of statistics are a better way of presenting the information in these sources, which are themselves tables of statistics, than devoting a new article to every row in an excel spreadsheet. Of course, for this crime I was screamed at and vilified, which is how I know it was a good idea. Reyk YO! 07:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
And I have stated over and over that in a perfect world, both would exist anyway. In a perfect world, there would be an article for every List of X cricketers team (with the obvious reasonably-applied boundaries), set up exactly like the Test cricketers' page, as well. Of course, that would take effort to achieve, so it's not worth it, while clicking the "No like, get rid" button takes half a second. Bobo. 08:02, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • It is worth noting that there is no requirement for SNGs to imply a pass of GNG, and many openly defy this standard and are accepted by the community. So the argument that an SNG is a failure if it fails this standard is one not accepted by the community as a whole. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    Actually, the stated purpose of NSPORTS is just that. It opens with this very clear directive: "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." Cbl62 (talk) 22:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:N states "It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline...". Or. In the early days I was always under the impression that GNG only applied to something which wasn't defined by an SNG. Now I realize that's silly because every article we're discussing falls under an SNG. Bobo. 23:15, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
@Bobo192: Consensus can change over time. There is a very lengthy discussion that has been going on over a month trying to better define the or SNG at WT:Notability#SNG change. Via consensus right now, NSPORTS states that meeting a sportsperson-related SNG should imply the subject can meet GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 23:56, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
If a decision takes that long to make, it is most likely not worth making... Bobo. 00:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Until WP:N stops saying "or", I will stick by WP:N. That's what we learnt on our very first day on the project. Bobo. 00:07, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I stand corrected! Have skimmed one of the linked discussions there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    As discussed in the FAQ, consensus for the sports-specific notability guidelines was reached explicitly on the notion that it does not supersede the general notability guideline. Its intent is to avoid unnecessary churn in deleting articles when it is highly probable that suitable sources meeting the general notability guideline exist. (Other subject-specific notability guidelines might choose to take other approaches.) isaacl (talk) 22:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
    There's also no current evidence that less than 90% of cricketers falling under the SNG fail the GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 12:26, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
When GNG was first made known to me, I was under the impression - and probably told directly - that GNG only applied to articles that could not fall under any subject-specific criteria. Bobo. 12:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment: as said in a previous discussion, the people who want to delete it can show perfectly that no sources can be found via Google -> “so it should all be deleted”. The problem is, we are missing some kind of research. In general about this discussion: nobody can show if these cricketeers are notable or not, so what is needed is an investigation. For the sources we should look into the secondary sources of that era and that country. I'm not aware of South African newspapers accesible online, so we are unable to find the Anthony Hanley sources via internet I'm from the Netherlands and I don't know anything about cricket but I know where to look for Dutch secondary sources. When looking for a pre-internet Dutch cricketeer I find Chris van Schouwenburg (around 1979). When google-ing him, no good secondary sources could be found see here. So most of the people above will say: unnotable player. However, when digging into old Dutch newspapers many good sources can be found. Five examples from Dutch national newspapers to show that he will easily meet GNG 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. So to state Anthony Hanley is notable, we have to find old South African newspapers with cricket, to see what is written about him. However, I think we don't have access to those newspapers. What we can do, is to look into old newspapers searching for the native "first-class match" players, so see ~90% is meeting GNG. If so, we can state that for those countries we don't have the access to, it's likely they will meet GNG.
  • Oppose Stating that, you can't really solve a problem without a solution to that particular scenario without it being fixed. Also why are we targeting cricket when there is probably other sports out there that might be worse out there with a good example is WP:NFOOTY on that front. If I am going to modify one of them it would be probably this ruling.
1. Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level.

Maybe modify this ruling to only be from the competitions and to not include the matches that was first-class into this scenario. But that is my two cents here. HawkAussie (talk) 04:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  • "has appeared in at least one first-class or List A match as a player" is better than the whole "highest ... domestic level" part. I would agree that we can add something about it needing to not be a friendly match - but the wording needs suggestions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I would definitely support moving to a competitive first-class / List-A fixture requirement. If someone played in The Q's vs The Duke of Nowhere's XI they can rely solely on GNG (even if that match has first-class / major match status). Spike 'em (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Pretty sure we did previously use first class, and it was changed. And there was some debate about whether certain 18th/19th century matches were first class matches or not. Also, first class cricket is not used by women (although I believe List A is), so we need to be careful not to discriminate based on male-centric terminology. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:33, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Although we also need to be less rigid about requirements. If someone has played 1 or 2 first class matches but has literally zero coverage, then they fail WP:NBASIC and WP:GNG, so not sure what benefit an article is about them. For example, cricketers where we only know surnames. Worth noting that FOOTY Wikiproject has deleted some articles on footballers who meet WP:NFOOTY based on 1 or 2 appearances, but fall way short of WP:GNG. And I think this is the approach CRICKET WikiProject should take too. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Because information is good. Facts are good. Randomly censoring information because it makes people unhappy is bad. Bobo. 12:05, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Agree that the language must be inclusive. However, I'm not convinced that even listing all the relevant competitions would be sufficiently reliable in predicting GNG-level coverage since, for example, minor counties teams full of non-notable players have regularly participated in ECB List-A competitions (e.g. Christopher Martin (cricketer) – deleted). In addition, umpires should be removed (or at least considered separately), the bar should be set higher than one match, and internationals outside of the major Test-playing nations should be removed. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:51, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
People are all too willing to suggest a criterion of "more than one match" and are then unwilling to suggest a boundary themselves. It's almost as if they know they are being intentionally disruptive to the cause of the project and this is all just a joke. Bobo. 11:24, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Surely the people with the most subject knowledge should be the ones defining the boundaries. The boundaries simply need to be set such that NCRIC offers a reliable presumption of the existence GNG-level coverage, instead of what we currently have, which defines what they think should be (or deserves to be) notable. wjematherplease leave a message... 11:47, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
GNG is nonsense and just an excuse to bypass any other notability guideline for the sake of it. It is directly contradicted by N, which makes it completely null and void. Bobo. 11:50, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
This conversation about the inclusivity and application of the NSPORT criteria that people are all too keen to refer back to, is the most painfully non-censensus conversation I've ever been involved in, and yet people are all too willing to refer back to it. Bobo. 11:55, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wjemather: There you just make it so that its the major counties of England only so no minor counties would be allowed despite passing List A status. HawkAussie (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree that that level of restriction is needed. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Oppose the removal of NCRIC. In the earlier discussion, Cbl62 made the point that at least four editors – Fram, Wjemather, Nigej and Blue Square Thing – had taken the position that WP:CRIN is so bad that it should be completely jettisoned and restarted from scratch. I agree with that but I think this proposal is targeting the effect instead of the cause. I would propose that WP:CRIN is scrapped with NCRIC subject to comprehensive revision.

Having said that, I should try and propose a way forward for NCRIC. I think the answer is to use NFOOTY as a template and, bearing in mind that this is a first stab at it, something along the lines of:

Cricket figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:
  1. Players who have played in any open-age international match, as defined by the International Cricket Council (ICC), between teams representing countries who are both full members of the ICC. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  2. Players who have played in a competitive match that is classified by the ICC in their Classification of Official Cricket. See also the official cricket list which is kept by WikiProject Cricket.
Note: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or by joining it as a substitute batsman or bowler (substitute fielders excluded). Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

These discussions are very interesting but I'm not sure if they will go anywhere without solid proposals. I was interested to read comments above about some sports not having SNG criteria because I came here looking for one about fencing. There isn't one but the person I was querying meets NOLYMPIC, although I think that may also be too inclusive. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:23, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

  • I don't think you've hit the nail on the head here, unfortunately. Cricket's tricky. Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level is actually a good rule (and implies that you have to demonstrate it's the highest level through a source, not just database entries!), it's just vague and needs clarification. That's where I'd start. SportingFlyer T·C 14:30, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Don't be fooled - that was designed as a way of allowing cricketers from, say, 1709 to be written about, despite us having virtually no sources and next to nothing being known about them. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think you're framing that properly. We should be covering those cricketers somewhere if they played at the highest level. They don't necessarily deserve their own standalone page, though... that's why SNGs presume until shown otherwise... SportingFlyer T·C 15:29, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
If they don't necessarily deserve a stand-alone page (as opposed to being included on a list), then the SNG should not cover them. The fundamental purpose of NSPORTS is to identify groups of athletes who do warrant stand-alone pages. I seriously doubt that anyone (even with all the time in the world) can show that 90-95% of the qualifying cricket players from 1709-1899 received GNG-level coverage. If not, they simply don't belong in the SNG. Cbl62 (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: If I would add my two cents and I don't want to be that person but what about for criterion #2, only be the big three nations in cricket (Australia, England and India) and their domestic leagues. HawkAussie (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
I can't remember many AfD conversations to this date on other Test nations' cricketers in the past? But then I'm feeling so apathetic right now that it's probably passed me by...Whereas there have been enough about Indian and Pakistani cricketers - most of which only I could be bothered to create - up for deletion that I believe we're shifting the goalposts where they haven't belonged to this point. I would be able to take this more seriously if any other users' than mine, AA, and Lugnuts' articles were being put up for AfD. It's almost as if it's only us three who have been bothered to do the work that you lot should have been helping with all along. If any of the rest of you put in half the work we had, you wouldn't be complaining that the situation was insufficient. 02blythed was turned off the project for exactly the same reason. Anyone spotting a pattern here..? If we all were able to club together and carry on as we were before these AfD's turned up, our necessary work would probably be completed by now. Bobo. 12:58, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
To be honest, I see where HawkAussie is coming from. However it leads to deletion discussions like this where the player is clearly notable. I'm not sure if it is what the criteria currently is but maybe include just the test playing nations domestics. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:36, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I would agree that the guideline probably needs to be that restrictive. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:54, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Cricket is a major sport and so it is appropriate that there should be a section for it in this guideline covering sports. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:16, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose removal of guideline with no replacement and prospect of endless discussions about its replacement while AFD is inundated. The issue of one line stubs can be solved as others have suggested by merging into relatively detailed lists of players such as players of a particular club who have only played a few first class games for that club and no one else, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you for all the comments since yesterday. I've noticed reference above to the ICC classification of official cricket and the WP:CRIC document on the subject. Again following the precedent at NFOOTY, I think criterion #2 in my proposed wording should be based on the ICC classification in the same way as NFOOTY is based on the fully professional leagues, so I've altered the wording. I can't say I know much at all about the content of the ICC ruling, though! Domestic competitions evidently carry a lot more weight than I thought they did so I've retracted some of what I said yesterday. See what you think. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Reworking NCRIC instead of binning it

  • As I've mentioned, the key here isn't throwing this away entirely but making Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level clearer. I think the Zimbabwe stats are telling above that modern internationals are definitely notable (the articles that are underdeveloped have all been on notable players.) I think even historical internationals are definitely notable - look at all those well developed articles for test cricketers in the 1890s. Looking through cricket stubs, playing a first-class match (which isn't technically part of WP:NCRIC anyways) clearly does not convey notability, especially if you only play one match, and I'm not sure playing a List A match conveys notability either. The fact cricket has been historically disorganised (check out the article on first class cricket) really does not help things. I think a start that would be immediately helpful would be to say Have appeared as a player or umpire in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level, and then work backwards for players who have only played domestic cricket. The modern major leagues clearly pass this guideline. SportingFlyer T·C 15:37, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    I would certainly support such an approach (having suggested the same recently) as it would bring an immediate improvement. NCRIC should probably be reduced to this clause alone as a starting point (the current clauses 2, 3 & 4 pay no regard to GNG requirements, since coverage of individual players in largely non-cricketing nations is almost non-existent). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:22, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I have questions:
  • what do you mean by "substantial source"? I would suggest this is unnecessary.
  • what do you mean by "the highest international level"? I think you mean official, senior Test match, One Day International and some, but not all, Twenty20 Internationals.
One of the problems with CRIC as it stands is that it was written in an almost deliberately vague fashion. We should try to avoid that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
It was written in a vague fashion since there's no universal definition of what is and isn't in cricket, especially in the 19th century (though the "highest level" in the 19th century should still pass GNG.) I agree it should be avoided, but looking through the stubs which probably aren't notable enough for their own page, this is the quickest way to a fix, since they don't pass those (one first class match, which I don't think NCRIC necessarily covers.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:28, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
We could bifurcate NCRIC by year and only use the current clause for older matches, maybe pre-WWII, and define substantial source as something like Wisden. SportingFlyer T·C 16:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not thinking about domestic cricketers yet. Just internationals, where there are clear definitions - a match is pretty much either an official Test, ODI or T20I or its not. I suggest sticking to that first - the domestic stuff will open up a whole other can of worms. T20I is something that will need a lot of thought anyway (and, iirc, is the point of at least one of the additional points currently in CRIC). Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:41, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Just a couple of things that occur to me. I've also been puzzled by this term "substantial source". I don't get that at all. Surely a source is either reliable or unreliable per WP:V and WP:RS? Like BST, I would drop the term altogether.

BST, can you give me a brief explanation about the differences in T20 internationals? Is it to do with teams that are full ICC members playing teams that are not? I would have thought that notability would rest with the full members only who play test matches, but I admit I don't know enough about this. Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Until 2019, T20I status was only afforded to those who had ODI status (which was the test playing nations and a handful of selected nations from the top of the World Cricket League). In 2018, the ICC declared that from 2019 all international matches would have T20I status, and that is what opened the floodgates @No Great Shaker:. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, The C of E. That helps. No Great Shaker (talk) 16:57, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I think you should say have "played or umpired at international level or a fully professional league" in keeping with the other sporting criterias. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:48, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • That would require establishing what a "full professional" cricket league is. Also, every Twenty20 International match between any countries has full international status, so we may need to be clear on that. I would argue someone playing for e.g. Botswana in a T20 match against Uganda is not notable, whereas someone playing for England vs Australia probably is notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • So we just compile a list of them like FOOTY. It's mostly going to be in the Test nations that will have them (aside of the 2 newest members). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • You'd also have to consider the position of players pre-1962 in England, for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:59, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • So you just say "played in what is currently now a professional league" to grandfather or retrospectively grant the notability. I am thinking mostly of the County Championship of course. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:01, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Anything mentioning "professional" is a non-starter. Amateurs always played a significant part in the game, even at the highest level. Indeed, amateurs generally received much more individual coverage than the professionals, so if anything it's the weaker pros that are a problem, not the amateurs. Nigej (talk) 17:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I also would advise against the use "fully professional" or a too general "professional". It creates enough angst in NFOOTY, and that is the most popular sport in the world, whereas cricket is distinctly regional. If some league such as Major League Cricket were considered professional, I highly doubt independent media sources in the United States would sufficiently cover players. It just is not a popular enough sport in that media market. Yosemiter (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Hence why I said what is now a professional league. But again, that can be amended to say "what is now a professional league in a Test playing nation". The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • We should be really careful of doing word gymnastics to include a specific domestic league when we can really just flat out say the name of the league we wish to include (like over at basketball.) There's not going to be a good hard and fast rule here. SportingFlyer T·C 17:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • When there are a sufficiently small number of qualifying competitions, we should just name them. In addition, umpires (if included in the guideline) must be subject to different criteria than players. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)I think we might be going round in circles here, that's what I had meant by list similar to what NFOOTY have. I think it is much better to just have the list. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:21, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • If the list is short enough (<20 or so), it is easier to have it directly included in the SNG itself. There are far more eyes on the NSPORTS page than there would be on an external list, which is some cases has led to the inclusion of leagues/competitions that were not vetted to meet GNG, and then later used in AfD discussions as why it meets an SNG. Yosemiter (talk) 17:38, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this is getting bogged down in too much detail because in cricket there was no real difference between amateurs and professionals except which room they changed in and how they got paid, or so I once read. As this is now a different discussion, I will reiterate my proposal from the above. I propose that WP:CRIN is scrapped with NCRIC revised to the following on the same basis as NFOOTY:

Cricket figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:
  1. Players who have played in any open-age international match, as defined by the International Cricket Council (ICC), between teams representing countries who are both full members of the ICC. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  2. Players who have played in a competitive match that is classified by the ICC in their Classification of Official Cricket. See also the official cricket list which is kept by WikiProject Cricket.
Note: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or by joining it as a substitute batsman or bowler (substitute fielders excluded). Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.
I've no idea what a "open-age international match" is? We needs something that covers everything, at least from, say, 1800. Nigej (talk) 17:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
also we need something that excludes someone like Bill Price (cricketer) who played 1 county championship match. Nigej (talk) 17:47, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Any attempt to put a cap on a SNG based on number of games played has failed - where do you draw the line with number of games? What we need - and we probably need this across NSPORT - is a general "players who only marginally pass the SNG may be deleted or merged if they do not pass GNG." SportingFlyer T·C 17:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Surely that's exactly where we are at the moment. NSPORTS criteria need to be very clear. Phrases like " judged by a substantial source" and "marginally pass" are useless in my view. Anyway why is 10 games any more arbitrary than 1 game. Nigej (talk) 17:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Because if you're making the assumption sources exist if a player plays in a specific competition, there's no fixed number of matches that will make the player "notable" - either they have coverage or they don't. I think ice hockey makes an exception in the hundreds for long-term minor league players, but that's an exception. (I don't think first-class matches qualify you for the exemption.) SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
You seem to be misunderstanding NSPORTS. NSPORTS does not say whether ANYONE is notable. If, say, 10% of cricketers playing 1 first class match are notable but 90% playing 10 first class matches are, and 99% of those playing 50, then it would seem sensible to set the boundary at about 10 to cover the likely/highly likely criteria here. Nigej (talk) 18:13, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
No, I understand it just fine. I'm saying previous proposals to increase the number of games have failed due to arbitrariness as the numbers you've come up with are difficult to compile in practice. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The sports-specific notability guidelines already defer to the general notability guideline. For better or worse, many closers ignore this when a specific article for deletion discussion doesn't reach a consensus that the general notability guideline should be met and hasn't. (The guidance on evaluating rough consensus discusses discounting arguments that contradict policy, but it doesn't mention arguments that contradict guidelines.) isaacl (talk) 19:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that will surely suffice because it looks to me as if the ICC rulings on official match types takes care of all the questions around status and professionalism. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Both the ICC list and the cricket project list are incredibly inclusive. Using them as a guide is a non-starter. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:53, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

We currently have 36,000 cricketers. Of these 5,000 are Test/ODI cricketers, so restricting to that is pretty extreme. Nigej (talk) 17:40, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Note: For other sports, we have required proof through random sampling that > 90% of the proposed athletes pass WP:GNG. In the case of cricket, such a showing should be expected as well -- including a showing that the standard works temporally (pick a random year in the 19th century for a sampling) and geographically (pick a random cricket country other than the UK). If the proof can't be presented, we really ought not be adopting an SNG that simply invites continued mass production of permastubs. Cbl62 (talk) 19:29, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
    • Where's this proof, eg for Baseball, American football, Aussie rules? The plain fact is that we have articles like Gerry Beare which say nothing apart from born, died, team1, team2, team3. Nigej (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
      • There are encyclopaedias dedicated to everyone who has appeared in a VFL/AFL match. Notability isn't based on the state of the article. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
        • There are encyclopaedias dedicated to everyone who has appeared in a first class match in England: "Who's who of cricketers : a complete who's who of all cricketers who have played first-class cricket in England with full career records, Philip Bailey, Philip Thorn, Peter Wynne-Thomas". The reality is that Cricket is no worse than Baseball, American football and Aussie rules Nigej (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
The argument that the cricket standard is no worse than other sports is simply an excuse. In fact:
(1) The standard for baseball is extremely strict and specific. MLB is a single league of 30 teams that is the sport's pinnacle. We do not grant presumed notability to players who appeared in second, third and even sixth tier leagues. Players in such lesser professional and amateur divisions must pass GNG.
(2) The standard for American football is also very strict (with one glaring exception -- that being Arena Football League) and specific. The NFL is the game's pinnacle with a total of 32 teams. (Historically, and for discrete time periods, the AAFC and AFL were equivalently elite.) Players in lesser professional or amateur divisions must pass GNG. We recently rejected a proposal to add the WFL even though it was shown that ~ 70% of players in that league passed GNG -- that was deemed an insufficient showing.
This notion of saying, "Everybody else is just as bad", is simply an excuse for not fixing glaring deficiencies. If there are problems with other sports SNGs, let's fix them, but let's not simply say, "We shouldn't fix cricket because everything else is flawed too." Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
It's simply not true. The first baseball player I randomly selected: Jack Hardy (catcher), no better than the Lugnuts creations. Let not use this discussion as an excuse to persuade us that other sports are better. With nearly half of all wikipedia biographies of living people being sports competitors its clear than the problem is much more widespread than cricket alone. Nigej (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
You've missed the point. There are stubs for athletes in every sport. The issue is whether > 90% of the players pass WP:GNG. Here, in the random case you chose, I'd bet you 100 virtual donuts that Jack Hardy can be improved to show that he indisputably passes GNG. That cannot be done with the 3,000-plus cricket substubs created by Lugnuts this year. Do you care to accept the challenge (i.e., I try to improve your random baseball stub and you try to improve one of Lugnut's random cricket stubs)? Cbl62 (talk) 20:56, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Can I have one of those donuts? I found significant coverage on Hardy in seconds. Hardy is notable, worthy of coverage, in spite of the fact the article's a stub. Stubs are fine, and you shouldn't be upset about them existing - that's how we capture knowledge. The issue here is that we have thousands of sub-stubs, and we have no idea if they're notable or not since the SNG that was used wasn't tailored to GNG (look through WikiProject Cricket history, it was adjusted to "avoid deletionists.") SportingFlyer T·C 21:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Happy to share the donuts. I went ahead and expanded the Jack Hardy (catcher) article a bit. As you say, he's clearly notable. And I think you've hit the nail on the head. I'm not a fan of sub-stubs even where the SNG is properly calibrated accurately to predict GNG compliance, but at least in those cases we have confidence that the article can be expanded in an incremental process. But when the SNG is flawed (and does not accurately predict GNG compliance), then we get stuck with thousands and thousands of sub-stubs that have no hope of ever being meaningfully expanded in the way that the Hardy article has now been expanded. Cbl62 (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

3889 cricketers created this year: latest Barry Assheton-Smith, Laurence Ashburnham, Sergio Arends, Colin Archibald (South African cricketer). Francois Anker, Sean Andrews (cricketer, born 1978), Ian Anderson (South African cricketer), Peter Amm, etc. It's going on, on an industrial scale. Nigej (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

  • All of these were created by Lugnuts today, even though it's clear from this discussion these are exactly the kinds of articles we're trying to avoid. I would support sanctions at this point. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
Holy crap! Are those all substubs? Cbl62 (talk) 20:33, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm not going to say they're all substubs, but every single one of them I've clicked on - along with User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2019 and User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2018 - have been, and I've clicked on a fair few. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
I took a look too and they appear to be all (or virtually all) one-sentence sub-stubs. By my rough count, there are more than 3,000 of them created just this year by a single user. Cbl62 (talk) 20:46, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Conditional support I have changed my stance from a strong oppose to a conditional support - the condition is that we discard WP:NCRIC as it stands entirely and replace it entirely with an RfC on this page, not at the Wikiproject, as opposed to discarding it completely and not replacing it. What I did not understand at the beginning of this discussion was the scope of the disruption - there are thousands of bulk-created sub-stubs referenced only to ESPN Cricinfo that may not ultimately pass WP:GNG, since NCRIC was not designed to be tailored to GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 21:44, 17 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support mostly per Finnusertop. Most of this page is excessively loose and encourages the creation of tiny stubs without any prospect of expansion. But cricket seems to be the worst. (t · c) buidhe 17:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Revised proposal

I would never have guessed that the organisation of cricket is so complicated. I've adapted criterion #1 of my proposed wording to the following, hopefully addressing the concerns about full ICC membership, types of international match and the expansion of the T20I class:
Cricket figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:
  1. Players who have played in any Test, ODI or T20I match, as defined by the International Cricket Council (ICC) in their ICC Classification of Official Cricket (COC), both teams representing countries who were full members of the ICC when the match was played. The notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  2. (domestic matches to be reconsidered).
Note: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or by joining it as a substitute batsman or bowler (substitute fielders excluded). Youth players are not notable unless they satisfy one of the statements above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.
I think we should try to reach an agreement on the internationals first, then give due consideration to the domestics. I'm proposing full ICC membership at the time of the match because I've done a bit of research and found that Ireland and Ceylon/Sri Lanka were playing international matches for decades before they were promoted. Also, it looks as if Zimbabwe were demoted at one time. Test matches aren't really a problem but non-Test teams take part in the ODI World Cup and there was the T20I expansion last year. If matches involving non-Test teams (not full members of the ICC) are excluded from SNG, then anyone who played in such a match must meet the GNG, unless they meet the SNG's domestic criteria which is still to be fully discussed.
Can we please try to reach agreement on the international criteria using the above as a basis for discussion. I'm not insisting that I am right because I'm feeling in the dark and happy to accept there may be much I've missed, but I think this proposal is at least a worthwhile next step. Otherwise, as someone else said earlier, we're going around in circles. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Test cricket predates the ICC and the wording needs to reflect that. Historically there is a well established list of Test matches anyway, so Tests are not an issue. The first ODIs were in 1971 and T20Is even later, so we could even say very clearly: Test cricket only up to 1970 and then your criteria. Nigej (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
I feel do like the players that played in a World Cup should be notable enough to stand their on their own and maybe have like something like:
  1. Players who have played in a Cricket World Cup, Women's Cricket World Cup, ICC Men's T20 World Cup and ICC Women's T20 World Cup.
That is just a suggestion. HawkAussie (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
We'd need to make it clear that this only includes the main event, not the qualifying. Nigej (talk) 09:01, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with saying all ODIs - it's relatively few other teams and these players would tend to be notable anyway. It expands the envelope slightly but a) it's easier, b) they will almost certainly be covered by domestic criteria c) they've all happened since the 70s so the issue of not finding coverage is reduced. It also makes it easier to deal with women's cricket. We'll need a caveat of "hey, the occasional player might not actually be notable anyway - see the GNG", but these can be dealt with on a case by case basis.
It is nonsense, btw, to say that both teams must be full-members. That would mean someone playing for Australia against Netherlands wouldn't fall inside the criteria. It seems clear to me that anyone who plays in an ODI or T20I for Australia is notable, never mind who they're playing. There are also occasional ICC teams that have played in matches classifies as Tests or ODIs. None of these players is non-notable. Just say Test or ODI - simples - and simple is a Good Thing.
T20Is is where the issue is. Frankly this is where people like Lugnuts and Andrew nixon know a lot more about this than I do and are totally reasonable when it comes to defining criteria. I might go along with the World Cup or World Cup qualifiers for T20I or matches involving a full-member, but I'd rather leave it to the experts to determine where the bar falls there.
Whilst we're at it, why not say what we mean in the first line: Cricket figures are likely to be notable if they meet the following. The word presumed causes so much anguish at AfD and using simpler English is never a bad thing, especially in a project area with a large number of people contributing to articles who don't necessarily have English as their first language.
Then with the bit underneath we can simply say "named in the starting lineup or used as a full substitute in a match which was not abandoned before a toss was made". The last part of that could be binned if it was felt to be too specific - and the caveat of "hey, not everyone might actually qualify" will catch the very odd occasion where a total random made it on to a pitch as a full substitute. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
And the domestic can be essentially written as something along the lines of:
  • Have appeared as a player in a competitive match between two teams playing in a top-level domestic competition. See a list of top-level domestic competitions kept by WikiProject Cricket
It's the list that then needs to be sorted out. That's where the problems may lie.
We can then go:
  • Other cricket figures may be notable if they have appeared in an official first-class, List A or Twenty20 match outside of one of the competitions listed if in-depth sources exist such that they can be shown to meet the General Notability Guideline.
To cover other people. Of which there are, by the way, many. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:07, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
That sounds pretty good to me, BST. To clarify the issue on T20I cricketers in a nutshell. In 2018, the ICC granted full T20I status to ALL of its members (108 teams, or thereabouts). The guidance was re-written specifically exclude those players from the NCRIC criteria. So teams that had T20I status, which they had earned through other tournaments prior to that (example Netherlands, Oman, UAE, etc), would retain that status. While new teams (Rwanda, Fiji, Brazil, etc) would not. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for the above. The T20I approach looks good because it allows for precedent having been set, which is fair, but slams the floodgate shut. I see that the ICC announced the T20I expansion on 26 April 2018 so I've used that date as a cutoff below. This is an adapted wording for the international part but the domestic is just a placeholder for now pending the project's decision about top-level competitions:

Cricket figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:
  1. Players who have played in a Test or ODI match. With rare exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  2. Players who have played in a T20I match for a team that was granted T20I status (permanent, temporary or special) before 26 April 2018 by the International Cricket Council (ICC). With some exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  3. (provisional) Players who have played in a competitive match in a top-level domestic competition. See a list of top-level domestic competitions kept by WikiProject Cricket (yet to be finalised).
Note: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or by joining it as a full substitute. Other cricket figures, including youth players, are not notable unless they satisfy one of the criteria above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

I decided to leave the ICC Classification of Official Cricket (COC) out of this because it will be sourced in the project's list of top-level competitions. I think we can safely say ALL Tests and ODIs given that exceptions must be rare. Obviously, a player at that level must have significant coverage, especially since the ODIs began. While some people may have doubts about coverage of the early Test players, I know from reading 19th century football reports that cricket had a much higher profile in the media at that time.

I believe presumed should be retained, as per NFOOTY, because it means that notability is certain unless one of the rare exceptions arises. If you use a word such as likely it begs a question – how likely? The bit about abandoned matches is unnecessary if we specify that the person played in the match. It would be best to combine the other figures with the youth players as all must satisfy either one of these SNG criteria or the GNG.

I think that, quite honestly, is as much as I can do with this because the status of domestic competitions will be too detailed for me as someone with only a passing interest in cricket. I think we have moved this forward, though, and you now have a basis on which to finalise the guideline. The key thing with any process or guideline is to be as definite as possible and avoid vaguery like the judgment of substantial sources. It would be good, however, if Lugnuts could check that the T20I bit is okay. Please ping me if you think I can help with anything else. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:18, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks NGS. The T20I bit looks fine, but what about the World Cup Qualifiers that are currently included? The ICC recently announced the pathways for the men's and women's T20I World Cups. I'm not referring to all the regional and sub-regional matches, but the qualifier itself. For example, the last men's qualifier had 14 teams competing, from an initial 62 teams that went through regional qualifications. Most of those 14 teams would already have had full T20I status, but a couple would not (Nigeria for example). I think these should be included too, avoiding WP:BIAS.
And a further note on the "top-level domestic competition" bit for people who don't follow cricket. Only nations with Test match status can play competitions that have first-class, List A and Twenty20 status. There are only twelve nations that have this status, with it being unlikely anymore will get that status anytime soon. Maybe the Netherlands and the USA might in six years or so... Each of those twelve teams plays each of the three formats at the top-level, so 36 top-level domestic competitions. There are a couple of nations that have two first-class competitions (Bangladesh and South Africa), but they are the exception. My point (or am I rambling?!) is that there are between 30 and 40 of these tournaments, which gives it some perspective when I compare it to the fully professional leagues of the Football Project. There must be at least the number of leagues in Europe alone, so these cricket competitions don't open floodgates, as some might fear.
Hopefully that's been helpful to those who want things changing to be more robust. Any questions/comments, give me a ping. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:40, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Lugnuts: Two questions for you:
(1) If this revised standard is approved, do you have an approximation as to how many of the ~ 3,000 cricket stubs that you created this year would no longer qualify for SNG status?
(2) Has anyone undertaken a random sampling at each of these levels to verify that > 90% received GNG-level coverage? If so, can the results be shared?
Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 15:56, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Hi. For Q1, the answer is zero. All of them have played in at least one FC, LA or T20 match. And for Q2 - I don't know, but probably not. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:00, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cbl62: How large a sample would you want? Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If you could take the first 25, middle 25, or final 25 from User:Lugnuts/Cricket/2020, that would work for me. If 90% of them pass GNG, I'd be persuaded. Cbl62 (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
@Cbl62: I was actually thinking about the Test and ODI players first! Given that we'd like to see if those are notable or not. I'll see what I can do - the idea of size of sample is the important thing - I make that 75 out of about 3000 or so articles - unless my text editor is counting wrongly - so about 3-4% of articles in a largish set. I think there are different sets of articles that can be tested on that basis - for example, we'd need to know if we can reach the sort of standard you're thinking of with County Championship players or ones in the Sheffield Shield first. If that's reasonable then we'd need to look beyond that at other first-class tournaments. And at international teams as well.
This isn't going to happen overnight (I think - I have some time just now at the start of the holiday here, so maybe I can get somewhere). I get the idea of looking at the list you specified, but I think there's other work that can be done around this as well - my gut feeling is that it's a lot more nuanced than saying "no one who played for a domestic team is notable because this bunch of articles that got created this year aren't". For example. Ping me or pop over to my talk page if you think I'm way off beam here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem with "presumed notable" is that that's not what we mean. There are exceptions. "Likely to be notable" means that we can deal much more easily with the outliers. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:08, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
If you're willing to undertake the project, I wish you godspeed. Others may want to weigh in here on sample size as well. What's key for me is (i) that we have some assurance that any sampling is random (i.e., not cherry picked to cover the most notable within the group), (ii) that there is geographic diversity (that we examine players across multiple countries, (iii) that there is also temporal diversity (that we examine players across different time periods to see whether the presumption makes sense in all such time periods). Cbl62 (talk) 18:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with all of that - and it's one of the issues that needs eventually to be considered. I've started on some work, but it's a project for sure. It'll keep me busy here for sure! Blue Square Thing (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
"Presumed notable" is the standard wording for notability on WP, as it references the rebuttable presumption idea; we're presuming a topic is notably by meeting the criteria, but in a manner than can be challenged later if some editor takes the onus (outlined in WP:BEFORE) to show that that presumption was actually wrong. --Masem (t) 16:12, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
OK - although I note that WP:NBAD does use likely. But, if that's how it is I guess people have to accept a tonne of articles they don't like then. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
Rebuttable presumption is legal terminology. I think we just need to focus on presumption as an accepted certainty unless an exception does arise. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Not sure where this "> 90%" figure keeps coming from, as it's not in any policy/guideline, just a number made up on a whim. You can use it to look at ANY of the SNG for sports. Looking at EFL League Two, mentioned below by NGS, and then picking a category at random, you get all sorts of articles, like this guy, this guy and this guy. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed SNG with WC Qualifiers and domestic competitions

Thank you, Lugnuts, for your feedback and the additional information which has been very useful. I've revised the proposed wording by including the World Cup qualifier tournaments and expanding the domestic criteria. I've consulted someone I know who is involved in cricket and I'm now convinced that we should recognise anyone who has played in one of the top-level domestic competitions in the same way that a footballer in EFL League Two is recognised. As Lugnuts says, it yields perhaps forty tournaments worldwide which is tiny compared with NFOOTY. Revised proposal is:

Cricket figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:
  1. Players who have played in a Test or ODI match. With rare exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  2. Players who have played in a T20I match for a team that was granted T20I status (permanent, temporary or special) before 26 April 2018 by the International Cricket Council (ICC). With some exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  3. Players who, since 1979, have played in a match in one of the following tournaments: ICC World Cup Qualifier, Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier, ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier, ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier, or World Cricket League Divisions One to Six. With some exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  4. Players who have played in a competitive match as part of a domestic tournament or competition that is recognised by the ICC as having first-class, List A or Twenty20 status. With the proviso that these are non-international players who would have received less coverage than internationals, their notability is accepted as with some exceptions they would have received sufficient coverage to meet the terms of the general notability criteria.
Note: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or by joining it as a full substitute. Other cricket figures, including youth players, are not notable unless they satisfy one of the criteria above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

@Cbl62:, I like your idea of sampling so I've used Lugnuts' lists for 2018 to 2020 and women cricketers. That gave me over 5,000 articles which I've sorted by length of title and then picked fifty each of the shortest and longest names. I've excluded anyone with initials and anyone with a disambiguator. Using name length ensures a spread of diversity because English names tend to be short while Sri Lankan names can be very long. Hopefully, there will be a good temporal spread too. My range is from Jo Day to Navod Madushanka Weeratunga. I'll let you know what I find when I've time to work through them. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:02, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks good to me - thanks for your work. Just spotted the bit about "...one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above since 2007..." in the original WP:NCRIC. I think this should be retained (in point 3), as these matches are/were essentially qualification routes to the Cricket World Cup, with the lower divisions (7 and 8) probably on par with the T20I status of Associate teams from April 2018. Thanks again! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:00, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Lugnuts and thanks again. I've added the World Cricket League as another qualifier. I'm hoping we're nearly there now. I'll crack on with my sample and come back as soon as I can. I've certainly learned a lot about cricket in the last few days! All the best and keep safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:23, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Looks good to me (especially with the WCL addition). The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Yep, agree too - looks good. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 14:40, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
I would say Tier 6 is way too low for the World Cricket League section. In fact I feel like we don't really need the World Cricket League and if we do, then probably only the top three divisions is necessary. HawkAussie (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
According to the relevant article, WCL6 was a World Cup qualifier so that implies notability. WCL7/8 were not, however. Lugnuts, can you please add anything to that? Thanks again. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly the same problems as the current guideline, in that it defines what people "think should be notable regardless of GNG" instead of what "likely meets GNG", and with the same low bars. I would be surprised if even 50% of players in lower-level international cricket, such as lower WCL divisions meet GNG – the supposed status of such matches does not indicate that substantial coverage exists of most of the players (we have lots of articles, but the vast majority are sourced exclusively from routine coverage and databases, and fall way short of GNG). Also, we have already established that domestic FC, LA and T20 coverage varies between countries and one match is way-too low a bar. Umpires are rightly removed from the wording but are then included with this: Other cricket figures, including youth players, are not notable unless they satisfy one of the criteria above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG which surely should simply state Other cricket figures, including youth players, must be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The proposed criteria state what may be presumed notable as cricket receives significant coverage in the media and has a literature that is wide by sporting standards. The statements make a reasonable assertion that exceptions to point #1 will be rare while acknowledging that there will be some exceptions to each of the other three criteria with probably the most to point #4. You must also remember that WP:V specifies verifiable, not verified.
The proposed guideline follows the NFOOTY model which works and it is necessary without absolute certainty (so allowing for exceptions) to presume notability. There is no other way of defining a process like this in practical terms – see also the explanation above by Masem.
The domestic competitions are all of the same standard because, as Lugnuts has said, they are only applicable to the Test nations (also confirmed offsite). Therefore, someone who plays one cricket match at that level is the equivalent of someone playing one football match in the PL or the EFLC because it is at this domestic level that international players operate. A first-class cricketer is therefore operating at a comparatively higher standard than an EFL1/2 player and NFOOTY rightly presumes the notability of single-match players in those two leagues.
The final paragraph also follows NFOOTY by confirming that the other figures cannot be presumed notable unless they meet either the SNG criteria or the GNG requirements. It is worded that way as they are presumed to have failed the SNG and so they must meet the GNG. Hope all of that is useful. No Great Shaker (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
To be clear, the proposal as written totally disregards the principal purpose of this SNG, to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia. It has more or less the same problems as the wording it seeks to replace. wjematherplease leave a message... 17:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
That comment is not being clear at all. Far from disregarding any SNG purpose, the proposal spells out in clear terms that unless an exception occurs, someone who has played in one of the specified match types is presumed notable. We have already dealt with the reasons for saying presumed notable as against merely saying "likely" which has an entirely different implication. If we have a Test match player and that fact is verified, then the person is presumed to be notable and has passed the SNG, so determination of likelihood is irrelevant. Lets just suppose, however, that this chap then turns out to be that rare exception. He isn't a bona fide Test cricketer at all – he is in fact a groundsman who was brought into the team at the last minute because of illness or injury suddenly leaving that team a man short. So, he has passed SNG because he has played in a Test match but he is an exception and he will possibly fail GNG unless he has another claim to fame. If you seriously think this wording is unfit for purpose (leaving aside matters of detail like WCL6), then you should also challenge NFOOTY and others as being equally unfit. Like NFOOTY, this proposal specifies the types of person, team and competition that is presumed notable but does acknowledge the possibility of exceptions which must then be submitted to GNG scrutiny. It could not be any clearer. No Great Shaker (talk) 07:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
You are confusing verifiability with notability; GNG requires more than routine (e.g. match coverage, team/squad announcements, etc.) or database-type sources. Points 1 and 2 may be ok, but 3 and 4 are certainly not, and the closing statement creates unnecessary ambiguity. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • How is this proposal in any way different or better than what we now have? It still uses the FC / List A which gave us articles like George Pitts (cricketer, died 1847)or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Colchin or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacob Mann or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frederick Nel or... What's the point? The AfDs show that these criteria do not indicate notability. Writing them into the SNG again only will lead to the exact same problems and discussions, and people voting "meets NCRIC" in AfDs. So no, the notability of players who have played FC or ListA cricket is not "accepted", and the "with some exceptions they would have received sufficient coverage to meet the terms of the general notability criteria." is clearly understating the number of exceptions. Fram (talk) 08:17, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    To clarify, Colchin and Mann come nowhere close to meeting the SNG (and are declined PRODs that, frankly, should never have been declined). The claim of first-class was a fantasy of someone who has a history of trying to manipulate this particular SNG to meet their ends. Pitts and Nel, though, I agree - although these changes would remove Pitts from the SNG protection I think as he never played in a competitive match of the sort that's being considered.
But, I agree with your general point about this writing. I'm happy to say Test match and ODI (although I'm concerned about some ODI players - but for simplicity I would say include the few who I may have issues with). But if this is going to be rolled out to first-class competitions, the list of first-class competitions in the thing that needs working on.
My initial thoughts are that it should be possible to say that most players who have played 1890 onward County Championship cricket are probably strong enough to potentially reach the sort of bar we'd maybe want. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm less clear about other competitions and would need someone to spend more time looking at each competition - some from each clearly will, but I wouldn't like to suggest that all would. I do find the suggestion that all first-class cricket is of the same standard to be amusing though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Sampling

Hello, Cbl62. I've been working through my sample mentioned above and have reached fifty articles. I'm now fed up and am reducing the size from 100 to 50. Of these fifty, 48 definitely meet SNG and must be presumed notable. At least three of them easily pass GNG because one was also a war hero, another a dual international, and the third an Aussie player with 50+ first-class matches in over a decade. I believe all 48 would pass GNG because they are definitely verifiable. It's true that nearly all are still stubs but that's unimportant – a few are or may be considered starts.

There are two I would query and those are Abdul-Shakoor Rahimzei, who has played T20I for Germany since 2019 so I'm not sure if he fits the T20I standard; and Cedi Muir, who played in one FC match in NZ during WWII so I'm not sure if that was a competitive match (ESPN doesn't specify the match in Muir's profile). Maybe Lugnuts can tell us more about those two players but I have to say that, although the articles are short and arguably underdeveloped, they are all very well written, sourced and presented. I think they are all sourced to ESPN (some have additional sources like the Wisden Almanack) but there's no doubt ESPN is a reliable source. It sometimes carries useful narrative and there was even a lengthy obituary for one guy.

The sample includes 18 women, it is globally diverse and has a temporal spread from the 19th century to the present. You wanted a 90% pass rate and 48 (at least) out of 50 is 96%. Well done, Lugnuts. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks NGS. Muir is an interesting one. He def. played in a F/C match (I've added the scorecard to his bio). There were only five F/C matches in New Zealand in 1943/44, with no Plunket Shield taking place. The fact that any F/C matches took place during WWII in itself is quite interesting. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: Thanks for undertaking this. The issue is whether they have received GNG-level coverage, i.e., whether they have been the subject of significant, non-WP:ROUTINE coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Is that what you looked at? Have you collected the results of your survey for others to review? Cbl62 (talk) 08:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
As I say above, the majority are sourced to ESPN only while a handful have additional sources and, currently, they are nearly all stubs. In my opinion, they are all verifiable for GNG purposes and meet WP:V. ESPN is, I would think, a reliable and independent source so it is satisfactory for the basic information that establishes notability (e.g., played Test cricket). If you look at Jack Nash, for example (he is the Aussie player I mentioned above), this is a stub sourced to ESPN but the guy is an experienced FC player and must be presumed notable because his career must be verifiable in Australian sources. I made some notes in an XL as I was working through but, sorry, I didn't save it. All I can give you is my opinion that 48 of the fifty subjects can be presumed notable although nearly all the articles are stubs like Jack Nash. No Great Shaker (talk) 09:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, but then your sampling (or the conclusions you draw from it mean nothing. ESPN does not establish notability as defined in the GNG, it is a database. It is good for verifiability of course, but that is not disputed and not what notability is about (well, if something wasn't even verifiable, then it wouldn't be notable either, but the opposite isn't true). No one claimed that all or even most of these players would be non-notable. The one you highlight, with 51 FC matches, is likely to be notable (However, that "Jack Nash" turns out to be much better known as "John Nash", e.g. as a player of Norwood Football Club[2], and even has a "John Nash Cup" named after him with his club East Torrens Cricket Club.). Fram (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Simply being verifiable is not sufficient for GNG. Not even close. Substantial non-routine, non-database coverage is required. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The question wasn't whether the articles Lugnuts (or anyone else) creates meet the current SNG standards, that wasn't disputed. The question was whether they would meet the GNG if no NCRIC existed, i.e. whether there is sufficient non-database, non-routine information from reliable sources. Confirming that the articles Lugnuts created meet the SNG does nothing to help this discussion forward. Fram (talk) 08:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Which goes back to your original RfC on ditching WP:NCRIC, which looks like an oppose from the current comments. It's based on the same criteria for most other sports, the one start/appearance. Concerns about GNG in a "niche" area are not unique to cricket, or indeed sport. I go back to an earlier comment on types of moths. There are 107,000+ articles on them! 99,000 of them are stubs. Would 90,000 of them pass GNG based on this conversation?! Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:40, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The current comments look like "oppose total ditching, but something needs to be done as the status quo isn't tenable either". I have no interest in discussing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST, but most species in general have received at least one full paper in a scientific journal, not just a database report or a local newspaper report. As for the comparison with other sports: there are probably other sports where the same exercise needs to be done of tightening or scrapping the SNG: but some sports get more coverage than others, so a one-size-fits-all SNG won't work; while in some sports one appearance may be sufficient to presume coverage necessary for notability exists in nearly all cases, for many other sports this isn't true. Playing in international competitions in korfball won't make you notable (though obviously some korfball players are notable). Playing in a domestic game in korfbal in e.g. Belgium (the second best country in this sport) won't make you notable either. Every sport (and every subject) has its own coverage, which often varies with period, country, gender, ... So the fact that e.g. football has a one-game rule has no bearing on this cricket discussion, just like korfball won't get a one-game-is-notable rule either no matter the outcome of this circket discussion. Fram (talk) 09:55, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
"... So the fact that e.g. football has a one-game rule has no bearing on this cricket discussion..." except it does, as I've said before, this is the standard for the majority of sports here. Never heard of korfball, but if you want to write a SNG for it, then feel free. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 10:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
If for those other sports it accurately (not 100%, but close enough) predicts notability, then there is no problem with that standard. If it doesn't, then it needs to be changed for these other sports as well. But maintaining a wrong standard for one sport because there may or may not be a wrong standard for other sports makes no sense at all. Taking your reasoning, I could have claimed "there is no SNG for the majority of sports, so cricket shouldn't have one either". You would (with very good reason) have rejected that argument, so why does it then matter that a minority of all sports do have an SNG and include a one-game rule? What matters is that the one-game rule clearly isn't an accurate predictor of GNG notability for cricket (for the competitions indicated, FC and ListA). So we need either a better indicator, or if no better one can be found, falling back to the default one for all articles. Trying to maintain a rule to give too many people a free pass even though we have nothing but database reports (and presumably some routine coverage, names or passing mentions in match reports in contemporary newspapers, but nothing to write an actual biography with), only leads to the same discussion about cricket (and individual biographies) that have happened for years. Fram (talk) 10:26, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
This isn't only about Lugnuts. A number of editors over the years have created similar articles. Sorry, I know that's picking at a single thread, but it's important to note that Lugnuts is only working within the context of the current SNG. That's all. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It was No Great Shaker who said that they sampled Lugnuts creations and said "well done, Lugnuts", not I . I have no beef with Lugnuts or anyone else here, and explicitly mentioned that they were working within the current SNG, I didn't need sampling for that. Fram (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, don't read too much in to what I wrote. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:54, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I praised Lugnuts because I had just studied FIFTY examples of his work and am impressed by what he has done. I should send him a barnstar.
The point is that I presented the result of a survey – of a representative sample, 96% may be presumed GNG notable in my opinion regardless of SNG, because they are all verifiable, albeit sources in Bangladesh or even in England may not be readily available. I highlighted the two articles which I think might struggle to meet GNG. Establishing GNG is dependent on verifiability and I'm satisfied that 48 of those 50 articles are verifiable because other sources must exist to establish GNG. Therefore, those 48 are presumed notable. I disagree that ESPN should be dismissed as only a database. As I said above, a lot of the entries include narrative content including one long obituary. I see that the site also hosts the online version of the Wisden Almanack so I think it must be what the current NCRIC is pleased to call a "substantial source". I'll be interested to see the results of surveys done by other editors. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Without the list of the articles you sampled, it's impossible to judge this. Fram (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It is clear that you are equating verifiability with GNG notability. Cricinfo (as cited) is largely nothing more than a statistical database that should be disregarded for notability purposes, per SPORTCRIT. The fact you are considering it a substantial source makes the results of your survey meaningless. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:46, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
It isn't clear at all. I said that establishing GNG is dependent on verifiability, which is obviously so. Verification is a means towards the end; notability is the end result (or not). If ESPN carries a narrative about a player then it is much more than a statistical source for that player, whereas if it displays career stats only for another player, then it is a statistical source in that case. I should not be having to explain straightforward concepts like these. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
You said "I believe all 48 would pass GNG because they are definitely verifiable." which is incorrect. Your initial post showed that some were notable because there was more to it, some were notable because e.g. ESPN had further (non-statistical information), and the others were notable, well, no idea why, apart from the fact that they were verifiable. Perhaps you meant something else, but without the actual list of articles you sampled, we only have your words to go by, and they are at the least rather confusing and worrying. You repeated above "96% may be presumed GNG notable in my opinion regardless of SNG, because they are all verifiable". You now claim that you said that "notability is dependent on verifiability", but the two quotes I gave clearly show that you didn't say that at all, but that they were notable because they were verifiable. You should indeed not need to explain straightforward concepts, but that is solely on your own head, as you gave a very strong impression of not understanding or caring about these concepts. Fram (talk) 10:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

@Fram:, you are clutching at straws to try and make some kind of pseudo-point that is neither here nor there. The POINT is that I carried out a survey of 50 articles and queried two of them per the terms of the proposed NCRIC. I reported that, in my opinion, the other 48 definitely meet NCRIC (both the current and proposed versions) and, again in my opinion, all are verifiable beyond ESPN and should be presumed notable. If one of them should turn out later to have been a groundsman making up the numbers, then that is the exception the proposed NCRIC allows for within the terms of presumed notability. As it happens, I've found a list in a text editor file of some of the women cricketers in my survey. I must have moved it there ahead of the XL and then forgotten it. I'll add it to SportingFlyer's list lower down and then you will not have only my words to go by. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that the conclusions you have drawn from your sample are worthless for this discussion. What we are trying to do is to determine whether the proposed NCRIC accurately predicts notability. What you have done, is determine that the articles Lugnuts creates, meet NCRIC. Which was never under dispute, and doesn't help us one bit. To see whether NCRIC is an accurate predictor of notability, you have now checked whether articles created under the old NCRIC would still meet the near-identical new NCRIC, and then presented the results as if they proved anything, especially the notability of the article subjects. A perfect circular reasoning, and a perfect waste of time. Fram (talk) 12:01, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Learn how to use italics and see the list below. Instead of trying to justify your abortive attempt to remove NCRIC altogether, why not do something positive and useful by trying to improve it, as most of us are doing? Do your own survey as SportingFlyer is doing. You obviously do not understand what "presumed notable" means and I can't be bothered to explain so I suggest we agree to disagree. I have better things to do. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Italics corrected. "The list below" is only a small part of your sample, so not of much use. Please don't bother explaining, no, I see your use of WP:OSE as an indicator of notability and that's enough for me. There are plenty of people trying to write a new NCRIC, and so far failing. To get a good SNG, you need people writing the stuff, and people pointing out the flaws in it, by e.g. doing visible samples where they correctly match the articles which would be included in the SNG, with the general notability guideline. "Presumed notaility" only comes into play afterwards; once it is established that a SNG accurately predicts subjects meeting the GNG, other subjects with the same characteristics have a "presumed notability". But you can't use "presumed notability" as a yardstick to measure the correctness of an SNG, that's once again circuar reasoning. You are already, preemptively, presuming that they will be notable, and then you conclude that the SNG thus correctly indicates notability. "They are notable because they are notable", basically. Fram (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
As Mr Spock might say, your argument is illogical. Why? Because you do not understand what presumed notability means. Why do NFOOTY and everything else (except NBAD) assert presumed notability? If a footballer has played a match in a fully professional league which might be EFL League Two (fourth tier in England), he is presumed to be notable because he has achieved a certain standard. A cricketer who has played in the English county championship is actually operating at a comparatively higher standard that equates to the PL or the EFLC because it is the level at which actual and potential internationals operate. Notability is presumed because, having reached the specified level, the person must be the subject of broad coverage in the media, books, etc. and such coverage is verifiable on the basis of OSE (that is, other stuff besides ESPN or whatever), thus verifiability is the means of establishing notability as the end result. The key point about presumed notability is that it allows for exceptions (like my groundsman analogy above). If you assert absolute notability, that carves it in stone and doesn't allow for exceptions. You say presumed notability comes into play afterwards and that is absolute nonsense which confirms your complete lack of understanding. The whole purpose of presumed notability is to assert in advance that the subject is notable unless an exceptional situation is found afterwards. If that is too difficult for you to understand, then I suggest you should stop wasting everyone's time and allow us to work out how to improve NCRIC, a necessary process as you have been told by several people above. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:52, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Further explanation of your survey and thought process has only served to confirm that there has been no investigation of whether any of these would meet GNG, only that they meet both the current and proposed SNG. You are assuming coverage exists without actually looking for any. Pointless. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
It gets worse. "Presumed notable" is based on the (legal) concept of rebuttable presumption. It is presumed that a topic is notable by meeting the agreed criteria, but presumption allows for a subsequent challenge to be made if someone is prepared to make a case that the presumption was, on this occasion, wrong. If you don't understand that, you are wasting your time here. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
We are trying to write a replacement guideline that will be reliable predictor of GNG-level coverage (unlike the current one). In order to have such a guideline accepted, it needs to be tested that the (vast) majority of subjects that meet the proposed criteria also meet GNG (and each criterion needs testing individually). You are not doing that as you have not looked for GNG-level coverage at all. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(ec)"It is presumed that a topic is notable by meeting the agreed criteria". Please reread what you just wrote. We are trying to come to agreed criteria, we don't have them yet. Once there is an agreement on criteria, people can be presumed to be notable by meeting these. Until then (i.e., now), we fall back up on the definition I quoted just below, "a person is presumed...". To check whether the criteria are a good predictor of notability, we have to check whether persons who meet the criteria meet the general definition. All you have shown is that people who meet the criteria, are people who meet the criteria. Fram (talk) 14:38, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
(ec)"A person is presumed to be notable if they have been the subject of multiple published non-trivial secondary sources which are reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject." To ease this process, a number of SNGs have been made, which indicate some kind ofchecklist for when this "presumed notability" is likely to be met. How are such checklists made? By taking a large enough sample (during the discussion, or from AfDs) and seeing from which level on is very likely to meet the definition of "presumed notable". The order of things is:
  • 1. General definition of "presume notable" as given above (not under discussion)
  • 2. Attempt to write a SNG which will accurately predict which people will meet step 1
  • 3. Check whether people who meet step 2, also meet step 1.
  • 4. Accept step 2 if step 3 has a very high positive rate, adjust step 2 (and then start stap 3 again) if the rate isn't high enough, reject step 2 if the rate is way too low or if no adjustments can be made which result in an easy-to-us checklist which is still mostly accurate.
Your error is that in step 3, you only check compliance with step 2, and declare that if they meet step 2, they are presumed notable. This is the essectial aspect that we are trying to determine here: do the people in step 3 actually meet the requirements of step 1? If you don't check this, you cannot determine whether step 2 (the GNG) is actually a good predictor or not. You make it very clear in your post once again: "The whole purpose of presumed notability is to assert in advance that the subject is notable ", yes, once an SNG has been accepted. But the acceptance of the SNG is what we are discussing here, and the sample was intended to check the accuracy of it. You have checked whether existing articles meet the proposed SNG, not whether articles which meet the proposed SNG would meet the general definition of "presumed notable" as given at the start of NSPORTS. Basically, with your method, it is impossible to falsify the proposal, as you simply assume that articles which meet the proposal will be notable (with some handwaving towards the OSE essay). Fram (talk) 14:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: Just to reiterate what Fram is saying, for every SNG on NSPORTS, "presumed notable" means presumed to meet GNG per Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines. This has been agreed to by a general community consensus. WP:V has very little to do with that, in only so much that GNG-worthy sources should be verifiable. Stats do not indicate GNG, and if an SNG cannot reliably indicate GNG, then it should NOT be an SNG for NSPORTS. Also, please stop using NFOOTY for OSE, Football is the most popular sport in the world and Cricket is a regionally popular sport. They are not, and should not, be comparable as an SNG. Maybe compare to the phrasing in WP:NHOCKEY, WP:NAFL, or WP:NBASE as those are very popular region-specific sports. Yosemiter (talk) 16:48, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@Fram:, you said "Playing in international competitions in korfball won't make you notable (though obviously some korfball players are notable). Playing in a domestic game in korfbal in e.g. Belgium (the second best country in this sport) won't make you notable either." This is not a good example. Much more international korfball playes and even national players meet GNG than you suggest! As Korfball is popular in the Netherlands, it has many bio's at the Dutch wiki nl:Categorie:Nederlands korfballer. On the English Wikipedia there are only six players Category:Dutch korfballers. I created recently 3 of those 6 (because they are speed skaters), and they are only playing in the national league (with coverage in newspapers) during the 1940s / 1950s. As this is already the case with korfball players, Korfball that's only played in a few countries, cricket: one of the most popular sport has even much more coverage compared to korfball. SportsOlympic (talk) 10:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
I was explicitly discussing Belgian korfball players. Dutch ones in general are more notable than Belgian ones. Fram (talk) 10:37, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and sampled six players completely at random from the Lugnuts 2020 list here and treated them as if I were doing a WP:BEFORE search at AfD:
  • Ruben Lepcha - mentioned a couple times in match reports, WP:GNG marginal (in English), would delete (maybe weak delete)
  • Gordon Harris (Australian cricketer) - marginally passes WP:GNG through a newspapers.com search (34 hits in interstate newspapers from 1919-1931, a couple of which are cricket-based)
  • Eugene Kitson - no sources found, fails WP:GNG, though Adelaide newspapers were not searched
  • Colin Harrison - only mentioned in Cricinfo and the Woodville District Cricket Club sponsorship guide; fails WP:GNG, though Adelaide newspapers were not searched
  • Cecil Gray - only mentioned in the West Torrens cricket club guide, fails WP:GNG, though Adelaide newspapers were not searched
  • Sidney Schreiber (cricketer) - fails WP:GNG, could not find any information on him, though Brisbane newspapers were not searched
  • I'll probably keep going, but my initial impression: the SNG certainly needs to be tightened. SportingFlyer T·C 15:48, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, SportingFlyer. As mentioned above I have found some of the notes made in my survey which I'd put in a text file and forgotten (the full sample of fifty were in an XL I didn't keep). Using your format, my notes are below. They are mostly women cricketers (not all of the ones I studied) and I've also found some Sri Lankan guys in another place. While you have done your six on the basis of WP:BEFORE, I studied mine in pre-AFD terms on the assumption that I am a deletionist seeking (and failing) to create a list of non-notables:
The eight ladies here are all internationals (Liz Perry is dual) so it must be assumed that their articles have potential for expansion and that they must be presumed notable on the basis that, per WP:OSE, there must be verifiable sources in addition to ESPN. Four of the Sri Lankan players are currently active in first-class cricket; the other one is retired after playing in over 100 top-class matches and is now an umpire. Again, although Sri Lankan sources may not be readily available, OSE and verifiable to establish notability which must be presumed. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:26, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Hello, Lugnuts, apologies for not pinging you above. As these comments relate to articles that were all created by you, do you have anything to add? Thanks. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
@No Great Shaker: The "results" you cite above do not show that these persons pass WP:GNG. That cannot be done by simply referencing how many games these individuals played. We need to see evidence (i.e., links to sources) showing that these individuals received significant, non-trivial coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. As others have correctly said above, inclusion in comprehensive statistical databases does not accomplish this. Passing references in game coverage or box scores also do not suffice. Cbl62 (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62. In that case, the survey has been requested under a false premise because the object of the exercise in this discussion is to improve NCRIC, not to perform an AFD. Look at this in practical terms. I go not have access to sources about Sri Lankan cricketers so, as the deletionist mob know full well, I cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that they meet GNG. All I can do is look at the articles as written and ask myself if the available sources and information are sufficient to presume notablility. If not, as with two out of the full 50 that I mentioned above, I might raise them at AFD. The other 48 players have all performed at a recognised high standard and so, given presumed (rebuttable) notability, they are all notable unless someone can prove that one or more of them is an exception, such that presumed notability is rebutted. You do that on an individual case basis at AFD, not as part of a survey that can only be used to ensure the presumption of notability. I see that SportingFlyer is trying to use newspapers.com, a hit-and-miss approach that is nowhere near sufficient. What about books like the famous Wisden Almanack or the Playfair annual and similar publications in Sri Lanka, Australia, New Zealand and the rest? Cricket magazines worldwide? Biographies and histories? Take Chaminda Handunnettige for example and ask yourself if with over 100 top-level matches he has not been the subject of coverage in Sri Lanka? He must have, and so he must be presumed notable. The women cricketers listed above are all internationals so they must have received coverage in their respective countries – one of them is even a dual international.
I would also remind you that WP is an online encyclopedia, not a book or a set of books. I can well understand that the editor of a book needs to place a limit on content but there is no need for that to happen here and I'm sure there is some guideline about that somewhere. If Lugnuts had written an article about someone playing in a local league match, I would happily support its deletion at AFD, because such a person is your proverbial man in the street who is ordinary, not notable. Someone who has played cricket at first-class standard, like someone who has played in the EFL, is a talented and skilled athlete who is by no means ordinary given their prowess in one of the world's two most popular sports. It must be presumed that someone with that level of skill and achievement is notable. But, presumed notability is rebuttable if the person is an exception and that is where a process like AFD comes in.
You as a sysop need to do what is necessary to close this discussion which is going nowhere. NCRIC cannot be scrapped per the numerous opposes declared and there is only one proposed improvement on the table, so you either implement that proposal or keep the existing NCRIC. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
There was no "false promise". The standard here at NSPORT has long been the same in terms of the showing required to support a new SNG. As for closing the above discussion, that would need to be done by someone who is uninvolved. Cbl62 (talk) 12:21, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Cbl62, you may have made a typo there but I actually said "false premise", which is not the same thing. How do we obtain the assistance of someone who can close? No Great Shaker (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Cooper (cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lance Druery, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lester Warden, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Ryan (cricketer), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dudley Gradwell, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glen Granger, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Greathead, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rowan Grebe. Reywas92Talk 06:28, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Note also that there was a previous RfC about the the criteria of WP:NSPORT here are too inclusive. It states that the subject-specific notability guideline do not replace or supercedes GNG, it also closed with the note of "As with the RfC on secondary school notability, this should not be an invitation to "flood AfD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations", which is now what is happening. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Seems to me that that's a terribly weak arguing point, since you're the one who has created a large numbers of articles in an indiscriminate and excessive way. Nigej (talk) 10:01, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Seems to me that you need to find a dictionary to see the definition of "indiscriminate". Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Seems to me that ploughing through an alphabetical list of first class cricketers who played for x, creating every missing article, would satisfy any dictionary definition of "indiscriminate". In what way are you discriminating between them? Nigej (talk) 18:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
And without any effort to find substantial sources. The continued mass-production of such articles in the face of clear consensus is plainly disruptive and must stop. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:55, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
As this is an encyclopaedia, there must be a mass production of articles so as to fulfil the essential purpose of collecting and presenting knowledge on all subjects. It is the negative and counter-productive flooding of AFD with indiscriminate or excessive nominations that is disruptive. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
It is also WP:NOT a directory or collection of indiscriminate information, nor is it a competition for the highest article creation count. The nominations to AFD are clearly not indiscriminate, with carefully selected articles being brought forward after the nominator has done more research work than the article creator (per WP:BEFORE). What I find staggering is the immediate "redirect" !votes on AFDs pertaining to articles they created just yesterday. Most of these AFDs simply wouldn't exist were it not for them reverting such redirects. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
I'm sure you did plenty of WP:BEFORE work prior to adding your !vote too. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • For my part, I don't find AfD nominations "excessive" or "indiscriminate" when a guideline changes: that's the natural consequence of a guideline changing, and we've seen it a number of times on Wikipedia without the encyclopedia going down in flames. No doubt those editors worried about defending such articles will have plenty of energy to do so, redirected from these interminable debates over NCRIC. Ravenswing 17:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

An additional idea based on concurrent discussions at WT:N

This doesn't apply to just NCRIC though probably it would be one to most benefit by it. If you look at WP:NFILM and specifically the section on Future films (WP:NFF), that page provides guidance that even if you can source a film to the level of the GNG, a new page should not be created until the film is in production. Now, that doesn't map directly to sports, but the same idea that NSPORTS in general can provide cautionary "do not make a page unless..." guidance can be used with the current NCRIC and other criteria to help guide editors away from creating pages simply based on details that can be pulled out of stat books. For example, and this is only a suggested wording you could add "Editors should not create articles for athletes that have met the "played one game" criteria for multiple sports only based on statistics and figures from sports data and record books. There should be some additional sourcing outside of their career records that should be present at the article from the start." While this won't affect the hundreds of existing articles we have like this, this may help limit the creation of new ones. --Masem (t) 17:26, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Masem Agreed with this solution. Keep the current NCRIC, but bound the creator of the article to use at least one in-depth source about the player in any language. Otherwise, the article should go to AfD. Störm (talk) 20:21, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
WP:SPORTCRIT says Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability. This includes listings in database sources with low, wide-sweeping generic standards of inclusion, such as Sports Reference's college football and basketball databases. I would strongly support this, with a strong ban on creating articles that lack sources with depth. Reywas92Talk 21:17, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The sports SNG needs the bar raised and I support any evolution in that direction. North8000 (talk) 21:33, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I favor tightening the requirements of NSPORTS where and as needed, and I would also support a measure to curb the industrial-style creation of sub-stubs. However, I do not think I would support a proposal to place higher sourcing obligations on the creation of sports articles than those applicable to other types of articles. If we have SNGs that are appropriately calibrated to GNG, then the creation of reasonable stubs (as opposed to mass generation of sub-stubs) can be an appropriate step in the incremental development of the encyclopedia. Cbl62 (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Having thought about this further, I am open to Masem's suggestion. Something needs to be done to curb the mass production of substubs, and I can't think of a better solution. Cbl62 (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • The main exceptions I can think of is cities/towns, which are created on the basis of database information only, and I suppose secondary schools, which will pass deletion discussions as per previous precedence and compromise. Off hand I can't think of any people in other areas where routine coverage in databases will be accepted as suitable sources to meet English Wikipedia's standards for having an article. (Otherwise, a social register or a telephone book might be considered to be suitable.) Statistic references for baseball and hockey, for example, are considered to be routine coverage and not in themselves adequate coverage to meet Wikipedia notability. isaacl (talk) 22:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
The number of people who say, "But there is no chance for prose improvement", should look at how many pages on American places have had no prose edits for the last eight zillion years. Bobo. 12:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
Which is exactly why we have WP:OSE. Every populated place should be covered somehow even if very little has been written about them - that's standing consensus, and a good one. What we don't need is a permastub that some sportsperson only in a statistical database scored two runs in a single marginal first class match 35 years ago, when there's clearly nothing else we can say about that. SportingFlyer T·C 15:32, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
The reason we allow the geographic stubs is per that under WP:5P1 we also have decided to function as a gazetteer and thus have a standalone on every government-documented town. There's only a couple other similar such topics (biological species, and I think some planetary bodies). --Masem (t) 15:41, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
  • In general, biography stubs are created all time across all realms of Wikipedia (actors, singers, politicians, ancient personages, etc.) with minimal sourcing. Subject to BLP issues, that's always been considered to be a natural part of the incremental growth of the encyclopedia. Of course, such stubs can be challenged on notability grounds. That's the normal process. What's unique here is the situation that arises when an editor or editors mass produce thousands of sub stubs based on a flawed SNG and which therefore have no reasonable expectation of being developed, incrementally or otherwise, into meaningful encyclopedia articles. The solution IMO should be tailored to address the specific problem. Cbl62 (talk) 22:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    True enough, a lot of stubs get created based on database info only, but we ought to encourage editors to check if either the general notability guideline or the relevant subject-specific notability guideline is met. If neither is, the article is likely to get deleted, and reducing the amount of time spent discussing articles for deletion is highly desirable. isaacl (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
    The sports SNGs are almost always met by articles which use simply database entries. Blue Square Thing (talk) 00:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    Sorry, I meant to say that statistic references for baseball and hockey are considered to be routine coverage and are not in themselves adequate coverage to meet the general notability guideline. Thus if their presumption of notability is challenged, non-statistic sources are required. isaacl (talk) 01:34, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    OK, that makes sense. Unfortunately it's not how it works in practice - you see plenty of "Oppose - meets NFOOTY" or whatever at AfD. If that rationale were specifically ignored by all closers it might move things on. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I've discussed how the deletion discussions happen in practice already (including the specific discussion that kicked off all of this). By design they reflect the local consensus of those who show up to each discussion, and for better or worse, it's likely they aren't a representative sample of general consensus. Editors interested in baseball and hockey, the specific sports I referred to, generally agree on stats sites being routine coverage, but of course editors in other sports may have other views. isaacl (talk) 15:27, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    I do hope that the regulars at NSPORTS are aware that many other editors that are not regulars at NSPORTS see this guideline as overly inclusive and allowing far too many articles, even though when push comes to shove, you editors nearly always prove out notability beyond the criteria. That's fine. But as you are all going around, the fact that editors have mass created athlete article stubs in the past based on databases (technically meeting the "played one pro game" basis) is a caution that you probably should encourage editors to do a bit more legwork to establish more than just the basic SNG criteria in terms of content, which is my point here. You don't need that GNG-meeting article from the start and it can still be a stub, but it should be more than re-iterating database results, which any bot program can effectively do. Adding advice that warns editors not to build articles without additional, non-stat sourcing is in line with the expectations of a subject-specific notability guideline, and would hopefully address the outside perception that this guideline is too loose in what articles it allows --Masem (t) 15:47, 21 December 2020 (UTC)
    I reiterate Masem's concerns, and might even go a step further. What I still want to know is from where is the text for these articles you intend to create going to come?!? I have never seen a good answer for that question when it comes to these specific notability guidelines. If this guideline is necessary to encourage the creation of articles WP:GNG does not allow for, what will be the source for the text you intend to write in these articles? --Jayron32 13:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
    I support and reiterate what Masem and Jayron32 said.North8000 (talk) 18:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the current cricket guidelines lead to declaring a huge number of people notable that we known almost nothing about. These guidelines are supposed to suggest the type of articles that will generally lead to a passing of GNG if searching is done deeply enough. In this case that function is clearly failing, and we need to reconsider and revise them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Sampling 2

There are currently some AfDs and redirects for South African and Australian cricketers, making it clear that for too many of these who have played one or a few FC games, we can't establish their notability (actual, not "presumed").

I have been looking at List of Otago representative cricketers, people who would meet NCRIC both in the original and in the proposed version. It seems that for up to 50% I can't establish notability. Of the 27 articles starting with "A", I have redirected 4 (Alfred Ackroyd (New Zealand cricketer), Thomas Adams (cricketer), Barry Allan (cricketer), John Aris), brought one to AfD (Hayden Anderson), and it looks as if the following might struggle to establish notability as well: James Allan (cricketer), John Allen (cricketer, born 1850), John Allen (cricketer, born 1903), Albert Alloo, Lawrence Anderson (cricketer), Leslie Anderson (cricketer), Geoff Anderson (cricketer), Thomas Andrew (cricketer), Gerald Austin (cricketer), Thomas Austin (cricketer), Francis Ayles. Now, it is likely that some of these will turn out to be notable after all, but even so: 16 out of 27 with dubious actual notability? To me, this indicates that the proposed new NCRIC still is way too inclusive. Fram (talk) 08:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal revised to include Masem's suggestion

The original proposal by Fram was to scrap NCRIC without replacement so that cricket articles would be judged by GNG criteria alone. There has been considerable opposition to that but nearly always with the proviso that NCRIC must be amended. Only one revised wording was proposed and it has been updated several times while we established, with key input by Lugnuts, what type of matches should qualify for SNG purposes. I've been mindful of the suggestion put forward by Masem and there is no doubt that consensus will be to include this in the new NCRIC subject to agreement on the wording.

In the hope that we can soon conclude this debate, I propose that this wording is adopted as the new version of NCRIC:

Cricket figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:
  1. Players who have played in a Test or ODI match. With rare exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  2. Players who have played in a T20I match for a team that was granted T20I status (permanent, temporary or special) before 26 April 2018 by the International Cricket Council (ICC). With some exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  3. Players who, since 1979, have played in a match in one of the following tournaments: ICC World Cup Qualifier, Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier, ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier, ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier, or World Cricket League Divisions One to Six. With some exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  4. Players who have played in a competitive match as part of a domestic tournament or competition that is recognised by the ICC as having first-class, List A or Twenty20 status. With the proviso that these are non-international players who would have received less coverage than internationals, their notability is accepted as with some exceptions they would have received sufficient coverage to meet the terms of the general notability criteria.
Note 1: Notability may only be presumed if the article cites at least one non-database source.
Note 2: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or by joining it as a full substitute. Other cricket figures, including youth players, are not notable unless they satisfy one of the criteria above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

I think this takes care of all the main concerns expressed in that the proposed version applies to top-class players only, the match types are defined, the vague mentions of substantial sources have been removed, mention of the controversial WP:CRIN has been removed, and the article must cite at least one non-database source. As far as I can tell, the database sites are ESPN (usually, though it sometimes carries useful narrative as my survey revealed) and the paywalled Cricket Archive. You may wish to specify those in NCRIC but it's probably unnecessary.

I've rushed this somewhat this morning because I'm not going to be available for the next few days. Please discuss and see if a consensus can be reached so that this forum can close and NCRIC can be updated. Merry Christmas and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

  • The fourth bullet point is unacceptable as it is not clear at all that "they would have received sufficient coverage", and in too many cases this seems to be incorrect. While Note 1 is an improvement, it still leaves the door open for one routine source where the player is mentioned as part of the lineup or with their game statistics only, e.g. routine newspaper coverage of a match. Fram (talk) 10:15, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Same problems; removal of the word "umpire" remains the only improvement on the current guideline. Frankly, this has no chance of being accepted. Point 3 and 4 remain completely at odds with the purpose of NSPORT (to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) is likely to meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia); the required coverage simply does not exist in far too many cases. Also, "Note 1" is totally inadequate as it only requires a single trivial mention (for example, in a squad announcement, match report, armed services list, etc.) which is at odds with SPORTCRIT and GNG; coverage of the subject must be substantial. And "Note 2" remains unnecessarily wordy; it should simply say they must either meet GNG or another guideline. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:32, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • There's no rush - it's not the time of year to rush through something that has a bunch of repercussions. My sampling suggests point 4 is certainly too wide - I don't think it's possible to presume notability based on a single first-class appearance, although I do think its something of note. Once I've completed a suitable sample I'll be able to suggest more. I agree that Note 1 is too broad and have concerns about point 3 and some elements of point 2 - I wonder whether these could be combined into something like
  • played in a T20I match involving a full member or at a World Cup
The GNG provisos can then catch anyone else. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:22, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I'd disagree with the premise that there's "no rush." NCRIC's been a running sore for years, and an on-and-off debate for many months now. If a solution proves less than fully adequate, it can be amended down the road as needful. But further heel dragging -- December or otherwise -- is just not on. Ravenswing 17:55, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • And your suggestion for solving it is? Sorry, that was sarcastic; I have an idea of a reasonable place to end up, but I have concerns over rushing this too much, especially given that the person making all the suggestions claimed a while back to not know much about cricket. Of course, things aren't quite as simple as that, but even so I think a fortnight to get it right would be better - no one's even gone to the cricket wiki project yet and made a concrete suggestion there. There are people who read that who won't read or contribute here, and actually that's a problem. And that's before you get to all the subprojects like the IPL, LPL, PSL etc... This impacts all of those as well. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't see it as a problem at all. The cricket project and the subprojects can't be unaware that revising/ashcanning NCRIC's under discussion. Those who show up get a say in the outcome. Those who don't, don't. They are the best judges of how they spend their WP time and energies, after all, and whether they prefer to let others do the talking, are only casual editors, or just don't give a damn is their business. Ravenswing 05:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • One of my biggest issues with the current mess of WP:CRIN (the extended version) is that it was written by BlackJack without any consultation with the rest of the cricket project. As a result it overreaches massively what is in any way acceptable. You want to impose something on cricket, go ahead - but that's how it will appear. Now, I might not disagree that that needs to happen - but you might want to ensure there are enough people to back it. And it might be a good idea to run it by the cricket projects to just check that it doesn't raise a massive flag with someone who edits cricket articles really regularly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    Blue Square Thing, yes, and then CRIN was imposed onto WP:SNG without any consultation with the wider community. I checked. Reyk YO! 17:26, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
The notability criteria for cricket are identical to every other. Reyk, you've said so yourself. Is this purely WP:CRIC's problem? I can't help but think if you all were here at the time, you could all have put your tuppence-worth in. Where were you all? Isn't it strange how I'm having to ask the same question twice of the same group of people..? (See below...) Bobo. 10:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't have an issue with not trying to force a consensus to be reached in the last week of the year, but I imagine you don't mean the matter can linger on further without a resolution? isaacl (talk) 20:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Absolutely - for example, but I recall getting told a couple of years back that it was unfair to nominate a bunch of articles for deletion at this time of year because editors would be away. So, going into January seems reasonable. I'd rather see a resolution, but I have a feeling that it'll be difficult to actually get a proper consensus that has a chance of lasting until the first ball of the 2021 Championship season gets bowled. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:58, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support the new wording including point four as excluding first class players would be going too far. Instead of removing point 4 perhaps note 1 could be strengthened to require two non database sources instead of one as this would bring the SNG more into line with GNG, in my virew, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
  • While it is good to add these to NCRIC, it would be a good thing to think if there's a way to generalize to cover all of NSPORTS in general (eg "don't create an article based on simply a database entry, even if that entry shows meeting one of the criteria in this guideline"). But that might be more work. --Masem (t) 23:09, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
    Let's not bog down progress on the cricket criteria; I strongly suggest separating any proposals for general change into another discussion. isaacl (talk) 23:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
    I would also suggest that changing NCRIC and people feeling like those changes were productive would help to establish their value in doing it across NSPORT. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:14, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
    +1 to Isaacl. Ravenswing 05:55, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose The proposal seems too recentist. I am more interested in historic cricket players who have a quaint, archaic nature that seems more encyclopedic and don't have any BLP issues, being long dead. Insofar as such historic players tend to have articles currently then this represents the status quo and, per WP:NOTLAW, the handful of busybodies here have no authority to impose arbitrary decrees and diktats. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • My sampling suggests it's actually much easier to find in depth sources on dead cricketers. Wisden obituaries, for example, are almost a definition of whether the person was notable or not. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Leaving aside that we have no collective interest in preserving some twee "quaint, archaic" structure Just Because Reasons, guidelines and policies on Wikipedia are generally created, administered, interpreted and altered by consensus of participating editors. It is with no little irony (as well as altogether typical of you) that you quote in your support a policy stating explicitly: "Furthermore, policies and guidelines themselves may be changed to reflect evolving consensus," at the same time you register your own vote in the matter. What the pluperfect hell? Ravenswing 15:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    Ravenswing, don't let yourself be provoked by this snide nonsense. Reyk YO! 17:12, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • I would point out what I was suggesting nor how a change to NCRIC would be implemented would affect existing articles without any type of grandfathering process to give reasonable time (a year or two) for those to be caught up or just assumed to be "before" changes to guidelines were made. The idea I presented was to prevent new articles from being created just based on stats, but recognizing we already have some that exist that we can't really do much about. --Masem (t) 15:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Weak Support of points 1-3, oppose point 4- It's more lax than I'd like but it seems like a good compromise and, I think, a better predictor of which cricket figures will actually have substantial, reliable sources than the current "everything-is-notable" bilge. Point 4 does not seem to solve the issue at all. Reyk YO! 16:59, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support 1-3, oppose 4: At this point, I'm not inclined to favor any waffling on whether the overwhelming majority of players that can meet any given criterion can meet the GNG. That being said, further course corrections can be made down the road, as needful. Ravenswing 19:24, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
    I see little evidence that World Cricket League players meet GNG, especially at the bottom end, so this would need to be removed or further restricted in clause 3. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:57, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
Exactly my thought as I don't think those lower leagues would be notable enough to have its own article. That is why suggested to maybe only do the first three divisions only despite the qualification process that it was in the World Cup. HawkAussie (talk) 00:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support all four points NGS has worked hard on updating the guidance, esp. in clarification of top-level domestic matches. This is the starting point for notability of tournaments that take place in each country. This isn't about little Timmy who played one Sunday afternoon in the Lug & Nut Village XI trophy in his local park, but for cricketers who have played at the top level of their sport. This starting point of playing a match is ubiquitous across the sub-sets of guidance for other individual sports. I agree that you can not please all of the people all of the time. Some people will have firm delete beliefs, others, firm keep beliefs. Ultimately it doesn't really matter what is stipulated (esp. for point 4), as GNG will beat this. A wave of articles have recently gone to AfD. Some will be deleted/redirected, but some have been expanded significantly and will be kept. This will be the same across ANY stub article (sport or not) across WP. We're now getting bogged down in a time-sink with pettifoggery. I see some editors have been disgruntled (can you be "gruntled"...?) about the number of stubs created by myself of late. There's no hidden agenda here by myself. I'm quite open, and indeed proud, of showing what I have worked on. I hope editors assume good faith and see that these have been created in accordance with the notability, filling in gaps as and when I have had the time. Which, due to the current world situtution, is in some abundance of late. Take care. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:39, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
You're right Lugnuts, it is suspicious that this is only happening while people are bored enough to be sat around doing nothing and need some way to stir the pot. If this had happened eleven years ago, this wouldn't have become a problem. Where were you all eleven years ago? Bobo. 10:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
No, it does matter a great deal: people, including you, are basing what to create articles on, on the guidance provided by this guideline. People are voting "keep" in AfDs based on what is written in NCRIC, and argue that NCRIC needs to be changed first to allow deletion/redirection. You have just a few days ago voted "keep, passes NCRIC"[3], while now arguing that it doesn't matter if it passes NCRIC, it needs to pass the GNG? Changing NCRIC to reflect what kind of articles really meet the GNG in overwhelming numbers would make things a lot clearer and avoid these arguments. Fram (talk) 10:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Fram, I respect you a lot, so I will state that that's the very point of what we were achieving in the field of article creation. If it is this which is being put under attack, then so be it. It's not mine, AA's, or Lugnuts' fault that people are deciding to delete facts. And as such, what is decided is not our problem. it just seems a shame that it's the three of us who are under attack when we were the ones putting in the legwork.
The fact is that if we change the brightline criteria to something new, even the people who formulate the new criteria will be arguing over it, while the criteria we have been working on for the last 16 years are insultingly simple to follow. The same people who are trying to formulate new criteria now will still be arguing over it in ten years time. Bobo. 10:36, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
No one is under attack. Deciding where to draw the line is a community process, and the article creators have no more or less say in this than others. The criteria are not really "insultingly easy to follow", they are barely decipherable at the moment, with e.g. great uncertainty if university players are included or not (see Wikipedia_talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 37#Recent English FC cricketers fail WP:GNG / WP:BIO and other discussions). The below proposal is at least as clear, if not clearer, than the current guideline; it just draws the line at a different place, where very few creations which meet NCRIC will not meet GNG. Fram (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Yes we are. What we've been working on over the last 16 years is being systematically destroyed. In any case, those which are coming up for AfD right now do pass criteria which are clearly defined. It's not these niche areas which are being taken to AfD debates right now. Bobo. 10:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Oh for crying out loud. No one is "systematically destroying" the entire corpus of work of the cricket Project (by my rough count, including repeat nominations, there've been fewer than 400 AfDs filed on cricketers since NCRIC was created -- by contrast, over two thousand ice hockey AfDs have been filed in the same time frame) -- over-the-top hyperbole like that will just result in a large number of editors writing anything you might say off as coming from a rejectionist extremist. The issue at stake is that a great many editors feel, with considerable justification, that NCRIC is far too loose, doesn't reflect any notion of meeting the GNG, and has resulted in many stubs of NN cricketers. No degree of disagreement with the characterization will make it go away. Ravenswing 10:15, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Revised proposal 3

Cricket figures are presumed notable if they meet the following:

  1. Players who have played in a Test or ODI match. With rare exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  2. Players who have played in a T20I match for a team that was granted T20I status (permanent, temporary or special) before 26 April 2018 by the International Cricket Council (ICC). With some exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
  3. Players who, since 1979, have played in a match in one of the following tournaments: ICC World Cup Qualifier, Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier, ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier, ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier, or World Cricket League Divisions One to Three. With some exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria.
Note 1: Notability may only be presumed if the article cites at least one significant non-database source.
Note 2: For the purposes of this guideline, "played" means having appeared in a match either in the starting lineup or by joining it as a full substitute. Other cricket figures, including youth players, are not notable unless they satisfy one of the criteria above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG.

Taking into account the comments on the previous proposal, let's see if this one can satisfy enough people from both sides of the debate. Note that obviously people not meeting these 3 points are not automatically ripe for deletion or redirection: if they meet the GNG, they can still have an article. But the above points include those players who are near certain to be notable, and doesn't list categories where too many people don't have clear notability. Fram (talk) 10:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

I think that can probably be simplified a bit and I have reservations over point 3 and some elements of point 2 as it happens - I think there's an argument that there are many domestic players who are arguably more notable than someone who played in a WCL Div 3 match - of, for that matter, an ODI for a side like PNG or East Africa.
On the domestic side, I would rather say something like:
  • Other cricket figures, including those who have played first-class, list a and Twenty20 cricket, are notable if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG
It strikes me that that is inclusive wording rather than exclusive. If we leave it as it is, we'll get delete, doesn't meet NCRIC as an argument at AfD for people who clearly meet the GNG - because we're not saying that well sourced articles about domestic cricketers are something we want to see.
Of course, it may be that the consensus is that domestic cricketers should not be considered notable just for playing cricket. In which case, we need to examine FOOTY and other criteria - I'll say now, that I'd argue very strongly that someone who played 25 County Championship matches for Kent County Cricket Club is almost certainly way more notable than someone who played 25 Football League matches for Maidstone United F.C. (1897) or, in almost every case, for Gillingham F.C. - the two football league clubs that have operated in the same county. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Someone who plays domestic would still qualify for an article if they pass GNG. That's the nature of NSPORTS which opens by saying: "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (for example, the general notability guideline, or other, topic-specific, notability guidelines)." Cbl62 (talk) 17:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
So we should say that specifically. Otherwise we will get AfD responses which simply say delete - does not meet NCRIC.
e2a - I think it's worth also saying directly that playing top-class domestic cricket in some leagues is inherently pretty notable. I don't think that's automatically the case in every country, but I do think it is the case in some places. I think we need to acknowledge that directly. I'm very happy indeed to require a decent level of sourcing - I have no problems whatsoever with that. But I do think we need to say that this is a noteworthy thing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Some might say that, but it is an easy rebuttal to point to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Applicable policies and guidelines. None of the other NSPORTS SNG require explicit "may also meet GNG" statements because it is redundant, and those bios are in AfD all the time without anyone really needing to be reminded that GNG always applies. Yosemiter (talk) 18:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
I've participated in enough AfD to know full well that the majority of people rarely refer to those but simply go with meets NFOOTY etc... We can test it with articles like Joe Walsh (footballer, born 2002), John Bradbury (footballer, born 1878), Albert Brallisford if you want. Good like finding in depth sources to support any of them - I'll take William Best (cricketer) as having better sources than those chaps (and I consider Best to be marginal at best btw) Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Claiming "Keep" on an article because it meets an SNG is an entirely separate argument than "Delete" because it fails to meet SNG (and in fact is an argument to avoid in an AfD). SNGs are not exclusive, so it cannot be deleted for simply not meeting an SNG, it must also not meet GNG in order to be deleted. SNGs a a brightline guidance to claiming notability, not for claiming non-notability. NCRIC and cricketers are not special and does not need extra clarifying statements about GNG when every other sports SNGs works it out just fine. Yosemiter (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Well, if it actually worked like that I'd be happier. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Patterson would suggest otherwise, but there you go - we'll end up losing an absolute tonne of articles that are actually sourced properly about people who are much more notable than any of the three footballers I've listed just above this. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:08, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
And that AfD is not yet closed. The nominator specifically said they did not believe it had good sources (something needed for GNG) and responders are providing sources to claim it meets GNG. Having the NCRIC explicitly state that it can meet GNG (when NSPORT already does) won't stop that kind of nomination regardless. Yosemiter (talk) 22:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'm convinced. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Beyond that, look: there will never be any guideline, anywhere on Wikipedia, that will immunize AfD against votes you don't like. A great deal of the debate above and in the past is in search of the Perfect Criteria, and that's just not going to be created. Ravenswing 09:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
BST - There's no need to say it again, as it's in the lead. But, in any event, the last sentence of Fram's proposal says it again: "Other cricket figures, including youth players, are not notable unless they satisfy one of the criteria above, or if they can be shown to meet the wider requirements of WP:GNG." Cbl62 (talk) 18:23, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
Which is a negative approach ("they are not notable...") rather than a positive. I want the GNG to be met - or at least an effort made to get close to it. But if you start by saying "they aren't notable unless..." you start with an attitude that says people aren't notable. When, actually, playing top-level cricket for a county side or a Sheffield Shield side is a pretty notable thing and something that we should try to encourage articles on where they cite reasonable sources. I'd certainly take someone like David Jennings (cricketer) over John Reva, say (point 1 notable as an ODI cricketer). Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
That's the essence of Wikipedia: We start with the notion that not every human person in history is notable. A person achieves wiki-notability either by satisfying an SNG or by passing GNG. Under Fram's proposal, we don't give presumed notability to every local cricket player who has played one game for a county team, but such a player may have a stand-alone article if GNG is satisfied. That's as it should be. Cbl62 (talk) 22:00, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'm convinced. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Fram's revised proposal 3 as a substantial step in the right direction. Cbl62 (talk) 22:01, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm convinced by the discussion above that if any article passes GNG it will be kept, no matter what's in the notability guideline. What we have here will demonstrably fail to discriminate between articles which do or do not meet GNG so it really isn't worth having. I think at this stage I'd prefer to scrap the whole of WP:CRIC and rely on GNG. Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:29, 26 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Opposse - not in line with the intention of WP:NSPOTS. Now it becomes a rule, instead of a guideline. In every sentence of the proposal is written:
"With rare exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria."

This is not needed as this is the basic criterea of WP:NSPORTS. As it it written in every sentence, we can make the proposal just as short as 

"A cricket figure is presumed notable if they - Players who ave received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria."

Or even shorter, is the same as: 

"A cricket figure is presumed notable if they meet GNG"

If that is the case, this can be the criteria for every sport, and so NSPORTS don't have a real meaning anymore. The summary of WP:NSPORTS is written: "If the article does meet the criteria set forth below, then it is likely that sufficient sources exist to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." SportsOlympic (talk) 22:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

  • Comment "revised proposal 3" is undoubtedly an improvement on the current wording, however:
    a) (as SportsOlympic describes) the guideline does not need phrases like "With rare/some exceptions, the notability of these is accepted as they would have received significant coverage as outlined above in the general notability criteria", as they simply restate the purpose of the guideline and as such are redundant if the criteria are working as intended.
    b) Note 1 seems redundant to SPORTCRIT and other applicable guidelines. The key is simply that multiple instances of non-database, non-routine, non-trivial coverage are likely to exist (whether of not it is immediately present in an article). Combatting lazy/bad research and/or article writing is not the job of a notability guideline.
    c) The second part of Note 2 ("Other cricket figures...") is redundant as NSPORT is built on this premise.
    d) I fear it remains overly inclusive. For example, ODIs & T20Is should probably be reduced to "permanent" status only, and clause 3 should probably be limited to finals/final tournaments of these competitions.
As for non-international/domestic cricketers, as BSG indicates, I think we can safely include some of these. For example, it has consistently been shown that sources do exist for the vast majority of County Championship and Sheffield Shield players, both historical and modern era, and even those with very few appearances. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:49, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - Add point 4 for domestic cricketers like, "Cricketers who have made multiple appearances in a First-class, List A, or Twenty20 matches", but add a note that in order to create an article a substantial source is required (other than routine coverage like scorecards/match reports) which provides material in order to write a short biography. Fram, I think this is necessary if we want to build a consensus and include WP:CRIC members in that consensus. Störm (talk) 15:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
    GNG (and SPORTCRIT, etc.) has this covered. Such duplicative guidance seems unnecessary here. wjematherplease leave a message... 16:01, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Störm is correct though, if you want to get any form of inclusion from the cricket project you'll need to add something about domestic cricketers. I mean, even I think this isn't going to work to discriminate and I imagine I'm on the deletionist side of the argument in most cricket related AfD. If you can't get me to agree that it's workable there's no chance.
Fwiw some sampling I did suggests that once you get to 10 appearances it's much easier to show notability. That's not a bright line - there are some below that where we can easily show it and some above it where it's tricky (up to about 20 in my view). That was sampling non-international county championship players from a single county (where there are decent online sources available.) I'm not sure how well that would transfer to other places in the world - I suspect Australia and New Zealand would be OK, more recent years in India and other places. I'm never too sure about South Africa. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:50, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
While Störm's Point 4 might be redundant with SPORTBASIC, it would not be the only SNG to call out a specific qualification that needs a GNG-like extra source. (See WP:NGRIDIRON #2, WP:NAFL #3, WP:RLN footnote for example of other GNG-like criteria.) Making a requirement that a subject have at least one extra substantial source at page creation would likely prevent some AfDs that needn't have taken place (and perhaps simultaneously have less of the stat-based article creations). I'm still not convinced it is really needed, but there is precedent. We certainly do NOT need to call out GNG in every single line though. If that were necessary, then all of NCRIC should be thrown out if there is no correlation between an achievement/participation and GNG. Yosemiter (talk) 19:27, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Well ... I can certainly live with a bright-line number of games total; if you find that the great majority of cricketers who've played 20 games in X competition can meet the GNG, that's good enough to be going on with. I have no prejudices against domestic competition, at whatever standard will reliably hold that a player who meets it will meet the GNG. Be that twenty games, or fifty, or a hundred, whatever works. Ravenswing 16:12, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
I sampled 76 articles, all from a single English county club - range of dates from 1890 to now. None of them internationals (that's c.20% of the total of non international Championship players for the side fwiw).
  • If they made 20 appearances they are certainly (91%) or very probably (9%) notable in my view.
  • If they made 11-19 appearances, I'd put that at 43% and 36% - with the remaining 21% marginal
  • If they made 10 or less I'd say 28% notable (all of those had 7-10 apps and all had other things about them to make them notable - generally military careers), 17% probable, 28% marginal and 28% very marginal/very probably not notable
I deliberately chose the "best case" - i.e. the side that I have access to the most resources for. There are other sides with similar sorts of resources, annuals, books etc... but I don't have access to them.
So, in those circumstances I'd certainly say that 20 appearances and you're pretty set. There's a case at 10 appearances, but it's more variable. The sample is at User:Blue Square Thing/draft4 if that helps (the 76 were selected randomly using a Python program from the a list of 378 possible non international county championship players). I've not included how I graded them - I can add that easily if you'd like to see it.
I should add, of the very modern players (i.e. debuted since 2000) it's obviously much easier to show notability. They'll also be playing more one day matches as well - the numbers I've used are only first-class matches. Some modern chaps rarely, if ever, play first-class. These numbers are probably more helpful when looking at historical players where sources are harder to get access to. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per BST and SportOlympic. The one-match start (in F/C, LA and T20 cricket) is still the bright-line for notability, and goes against the consensus of all the other sports with inclusion of one start/appearance. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    Lugnuts I think the football project has the advantage that I'm seeing "technically passes but..." a bit more frequently at AfD just now. If we're happy to do that a touch more I think it helps the case for retaining what we currently have. We really should get around to binning most of CRIN though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:43, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    Yes, I've seen a lot of those football AfDs of later. Now I know nothing about the topic, and I certainly don't want to undermine any of those nominations. However, I do wonder what WP:BEFORE work goes into each nom, and the subsequent !votes. There must have been a starting base of picking a player who only played one footy match, and using them as an AfD test-case, and then using said case as a precedent to delete further articles. And I agree with the CRIN comment - it's not something I refer to, and does confuse the issue when mentioning WP:NCRIC. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:48, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    The current guideline isn't one FC/LA/T20 match, it's "highest international or domestic level", which is ill-defined and not a bright-line at all. Technically that could exclude things like County Championship Division 2. wjematherplease leave a message... 13:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    Which has been further clarified with the ICC's definition, and mentioned multiple times. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    Of which there is no mention in the current guideline, and no consensus for adding. CRIN is even worse – "senior domestic competition" is ridiculously vague, and could include almost anything. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:32, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Lugnuts: There is some precedent in WP:NHOCKEY for lower levels requiring a greater number of appearances, but I think that is the only SNG that has it. However, having a 10 or 20 statement would/should not prevent article creation nor induce deletion of subject that does not have that prerequisite if GNG laid out in the article itself. If only 28% 75% single-appearance domestic meet GNG, and we cannot come to a consensus of the number of appearances that do, then there should be no mention of domestics at all in NCRIC. (At least for now until there is a consensus.) Yosemiter (talk) 13:56, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks Yosemiter. Probably because ice hockey is a minority/niche sport, with barely 2m people taking part in it world-wide, compared to 220m for cricket and 250m for football (per Google figures). Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 15:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    @Yosemiter: The 28% could be framed as 75% with some evidence of notability fwiw. With modern players I would put that at a much higher level - certainly I've created English county players on their debuts recently with references which would easily pass GNG.
    Changing "top level of domestic cricket" to what we actually mean, however, would certainly be helpful. It got changed away from that in 2007. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:03, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    Thanks, and corrected. Doesn't really change my statement about GNG though. And there is a fairly large number of editors that prefer >90%, I think quantity might be more important. If 25% that don't meet is only a few hundred articles, that is much more manageable than if say the 10% that don't in another sport means 2000 articles. Yosemiter (talk) 14:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
    The sports-specific notability guidelines were formed precisely to move away from a one-size-fits-all standard for having an article about athletes. The editors interested in each sport are free to devise an appropriate set of criteria for which it is highly likely that the general notability guideline can be satisfied for the subject in question. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per SportsOlympic and Blue Square Thing, it goes against the consensus of all other sports with the one appearance notability. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:44, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment Not too wiki savvy so hopefully am not committing any faux pas with regards to procedure! But just thought I should chime in to say I feel every Australian First-class player up until the 1950's will easily meet GNG due to the wonderful trove archives provided by the National Library of Australia, as to be honest there is quite extensive coverage even on notable district cricketers (only reason I only say up until 1950's is that their newspaper archives do not extend much into 60's and beyond, but this I imagine is just because copyright expires after about 65 years, so in due time will likely see more sources on players after this period as well). I raise this because while this coverage exists it will take time to expand the vast amount of articles, I am not sure how easy it is to 'undelete' an article, but if policy changes and there is a mass purge it may be prohibitively difficult to go through 'arguing' each article for undeletion, if that makes sense. JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 23:25, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
    For consideration, example of a one FC match Queensland cricketer from rural region (bear in mind Queensland cricket coverage is far less extensive than the other states): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Barnes_(Australian_cricketer) JagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 23:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose Fram's proposal because domestic competition must be included for cricket as it is for football. Lugnuts has outlined the domestic competitions that deserve recognition and they number perhaps forty, which is well below the total recognised by NFOOTY, and I think the principle of one match subject to exceptions is as fair for NCRIC as for NFOOTY. As points 1 to 3 of this proposal are the same (I think, without doing a word-for-word) as in the previous proposal, why not at least modify NCRIC to include these three with a point four placeholder in italics that domestic cricket is being discussed in a new section on this page? And then open that discussion and decide finally what the precise criteria for domestic must be. Just a thought to try and move some of this forward to completion.
I agree with the comments above by Lugnuts and Blue Square Thing about the underlying WP:CRIN – I just tried reading it again and, while some of it is over my head, the impression I get is of something written many years ago that hasn't evolved and has become an anachronism – but that's for the cricket project to decide, not this discussion.
I don't intend to take any further part here as I'm not qualified to talk about the more detailed aspects of cricketing competitions. I have expertise in process design which is why I offered to try and help out by raising a proposal, though I needed help from Lugnuts as the subject-matter expert, as happens in the real world. Best wishes to all for 2021 and stay safe. No Great Shaker (talk) 14:34, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Revisiting this

In the light of a large number of recent AfD nominations, I wonder if anyone has anything further to add on this before it gets put to bed? I've seen some "meets NCRIC" or "cricketers aren't notable" simplistic arguments, but also some more nuanced positions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

  • Unfortunately, we seem to have accomplished nothing. And, as shown at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernest Greathead, a minority of voters can still show up, wave the "passes the SNG" card, make no showing of any significant coverage, and the result is that a one-line micro stub is preserved with a "No Consensus" determination. Cbl62 (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that the difficulty of dealing with it is due to sort of a domino effect. The criteria for the large participation sports (= "did it for a living for one day") is really too low of a bar. Elsewhere in Wikipedia it has become the common poster child example of a SNG gone awry. It was also cited in the RFC comments. (The RFC also had a built-in poison pill for change by focusing on and having to support 3 being a magic number, also clear form the RFC comments.) With that domino fallen, the only way to deal with cricket separately is to argue that it is less deserving than football, and who wants to take that task on. Suggest dealing with the first domino. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:38, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

To set context, Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 15 § Arbitrary break for convenience is I believe the last time we had a discussion on changing the basic criteria (eight years ago now). For better or worse, all those people who complain about it didn't show up to establish a consensus (or didn't feel strongly enough to weigh in). That being said, the point of creating individual sport-specific guidelines was that a single basic set of criteria couldn't be adequately applied to all sports. It's not a domino; it's a backstop of last resort. isaacl (talk) 23:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Other than the "last resort" part which I didn't understand, I don't disagree with any of your post. But I don't think that it refutes any of my post. Based on my previous comments plus if it's been 8 years since it's been looked at, perhaps it's time for another look. And there is one pitfall to avoid. Operationally, this isn't to define notability by the elsewhere-meaning of the term, it's to see if it's so wp:notable that it can temporarily bypass the sourcing-based GNG and unofficially/defacto permanently bypass the sourcing-based GNG.North8000 (talk) 16:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
The sentence in question from the "Basic criteria" section reads as follows: The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). As discussed in the previous thread (which triggered modifying the sentence to its current form), this isn't intended to set up a global criterion covering all sports. It's descriptive of the type of criteria generally seen in the individual sports-specific criteria. One editor expressed the view that the basic criteria is a catchall for any sport does not have a set of specific criteria. Either way, it's not a necessary condition for each of the specific sports.
Every time I've tried to devise changes to the wording to address complaints from critics, they don't show up to the discussion and there's not enough participation to establish a reasonable consensus. (So I wrote the FAQ instead, to capture the various consensus agreements that have been reached on this talk page.) A lot of long-time interested parties think that tinkering with the wording won't stop criticism in any case, and they have a fair point. Experience has show that closers are weighing what is said during the deletion discussions, and not weighing whether or not those arguments are actually in agreement with what's listed in this guideline, since English Wikipedia's guidance on rough consensus doesn't allow arguments to be discounted on the basis of guidelines. So while we can certainly discuss modifying the "Basic criteria" section, I don't think it'll change the discussion around, say, the cricket notability guidelines. I think all of the above discussion points will continue to be held by each participant. Those who view the sports-specific guidelines as predictors of meeting the general notability guideline will continue to disagree with those who think cricket players that meet some achievement-based standard warrant standalone articles. isaacl (talk) 22:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_39&oldid=1223935635"