Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 71

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 65←Archive 69Archive 70Archive 71Archive 72Archive 73→Archive 75

The Neville Shelmerdine Award...

... which is for people who are notable cricketers without doing anything of distinction whatsoever, has another contender. Arthur Ricketts seems to have been particularly supernumerary in his single first-class match. Johnlp (talk) 20:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Handful of Hampshire cricketers has this distinction as well! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Bruce Oxenford

Does anyone know if Bruce Oxenford (Queensland 1991-1993[1]) is related to Ian Oxenford (Queensland 1958-1960[2])? Hack (talk) 03:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, it looks possible, as Ian Oxenford's second name is Bruce. Unless it's really true that all Australians from a certain era were called Bruce (except the women, of course, who were all allegedly called Sheila). Email inquiry to Queensland Cricket might find out, and even though it's a bit OR, it's pretty minor. Johnlp (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
It's always possible that Bruce was a family name and the elder Oxenford was an uncle or cousin... Hack (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Yes, it'd be wrong to assume they have to be father and son, even if there's a strong likelihood they are related. That's why a judicious inquiry might be the way forward... Johnlp (talk) 07:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Cricket World Cup vs ICC Cricket World Cup

Hi folks, KS700 (talk · contribs) has made a load of moves without discussion to include ICC in the title as it's official name rather than the WP:COMMON NAME. I think the changes could use a few more eyes. Nev1 (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

The user's response to people who've pointed this out on his talk page has not been congenial. I think they should all be reverted, but it may require admin intervention to achieve that. Johnlp (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe that, quite clearly, the common name is Cricket World Cup. If needed, a discussion can follow here. But in absence of any such discussion, status quo should be maintained. I have reverted all the page moves, barring 1999 Cricket World Cup, for which I had to request CSD. Yes Michael? •Talk 18:15, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
Not all have been reverted: there are still some of the 1999 ICC Cricket World Cup Final type still to be done. I'll let those with admin status who have been reasoning with this user make the moves... Johnlp (talk) 20:58, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Participants of this project may be interested in Talk:2015 ICC Cricket World Cup#Requested move where a similar move is being discussed. Jenks24 (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Here goes

I can see myself giving up on this after a few days, but I'm going to put all (we'll see!) the Oxford University first-class players into a list similar to List of Hampshire CCC first-class players (1864-1885), to limit page size I'll break each page down into 30 or so years each.... gonna take an age! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Before you do (or at least, before we do too many) it'd be worth having a chat to work out a consensus on how we're going to set these lists up. I have no problem with the Hants lists, but with so many different sports doing things in different ways, it's probably best to see what options we have, and make sure we all get the same things within cricket.

etc etc.

I would suggest something similar to what we have: the only problem is that there is nothing there to be able to compare a player from the 1800s with one from now? So for example, no single list would have the top ten run-scorers for a county. Harrias talk 16:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to create a new table for such a use? I'll be the first to admit I'm useless at designing the things, they never seem to build themselves when I do them! The Nashville and Philadelphia ones looked like the best to use, not sure about Man U one as most nuiversity players make just a handful or two of appearances. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:36, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

European Division 3 Championship

The European Division 3 Twenty20 Championship is currently being played in Slovenia and Austria. This morning, Estonia beat Slovenia by 64 runs at the ground in Austria, and this afternoon will play Sweden at the ground in Slovenia. Can anyone think of any other occasion in any other sport where a team played two internationals in the same day in completely different countries? Andrew nixon (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Not quite the same thing, but England played Test matches against both New Zealand and West Indies on 11 January 1930 (one had started the day before), and started Tests against the same two opponents on 21 February 1930. Johnlp (talk) 14:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Thought about those, but decided they didn't count as it wasn't really the same team! Quite a swing in fortunes for Estonia in the two matches - they scored 236-8 and beat Slovenia by 64 runs and then conceded 229-3 against Sweden and lost by 136 runs. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

The Neville Shelmerdine Award, part II...

... another candidate in terms of lack of success might be the 17-year-old Herbert Gamlin, whose first match as a bowler for Somerset produced an Essex record score of 692 that stood for 95 years as the county record, and whose second was the match in which Lancashire scored 801 and Archie MacLaren got 424. In both matches, Gamlin batted at No 11 and got a pair, but he did have the satisfaction of taking MacLaren's wicket... eventually. Johnlp (talk) 17:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

A few Irish ones - John Allen, only first-class match, out for a duck in the first innings and yet to bat when rain ended the Irish second innings. Hugh Baker played one first-class match for Dublin University (alongside someone rather famous) and scored 0 & 2 batting at 10 in a match where he didn't bowl. Bernard Bergin's only FC match was one of only 15 FC matches to get a result in one day. James Ennis got a pair in his only first-class match.
And what about players who had a great first-class debut only to never play again? James Gill scored a century in his only first-class match, also his only match for Ireland. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Another great only first-class performance - Norman Callaway Andrew nixon (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Aamir Ikram of Wales Minor Counties played a single one-day match, not batting and bowling 6 wicket-less overs. Jamie Bishop played a single first-class match for Glamorgan in 1992, remaining unbeaten on 51 in his only innings and never appearing for the county again. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Infobox cricketer changes

Hi all,

In case you don't watch the talk page, can I bring to your attention proposed changes made to {{infobox cricketer}} by members outside this project who are aiming to standardise the parameters used for dates and places of birth/death. Quite how this will affect our workload remains to be seen, but notice has been given on the talk page - I've given a quick reply.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Women's cricket in Australia

I started Women's cricket in Australia a day or two ago. I'm mostly drawing on one or two older books about women's sport in Australia in general. I'm not a huge cricket fan but would really appreciate any help possible in trying to get this up to a C or B class article, or even as a DYK submission. --LauraHale (talk) 11:37, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

User's YellowMonkey and Harrias seem the most knowledgeable about womens cricket on here. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:03, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Minor Counties

I'm doing loads on Minor Counties cricket at the moment. I'm attempting to get rid of the smaller redlinks (leaving the players who have played 100+ first-class matches till later to do in more detail). I'm making sure all the categories are ship shape and I'm creating more for the counties themselves and their captains. I'm then, once I have completed enough redlinks, making Lists of List A players. I'll be expanding the counties pages, plus expanding the Minor Counties page itself. So yep, loads to do. I anyone can spare some time to make the task a little easier, that would be appreciated. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Darren Sammy - bowling speed

While watching a brilliant example of how not to play Test cricket between WI and Pakistan, I noticed Mr Boring Line and Length aka Darren Sammy is down as a fast-medium bowler. Thus far I'm yet to see him get over 80mph, surely not fast-medium or even medium-fast.... just medium??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:57, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

CricketArchive seem to agree. Nev1 (talk) 16:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

County Championship table template

I've never been any good at making these templates!!! I've got to the 2001 County Championship, where the table includes DE - Drawn but team batting last with scores level - 6 points. How on earth you input this on a template I've no idea!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Going to be the same for the earlier ones as well, just looking at the 1960s tables and they have different points systems. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:56, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Also putting in the calculation on the main template for points, which changed in 2003. Looking at 2002 County Championship, the template obviously doesn't reflect that there were 12 points for a win and 4 for a draw. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Would it be easier to create the table by hand rather than using a template? Nev1 (talk) 17:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Mongoose (cricket bat)

I'm struggling to imagine what this thing looks like. Any suggestions for how we get a photo? I'm going to drop an email to the manufacturers and ask if they'll donate us some freely licensed pictures. --Dweller (talk) 09:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

For your own view, just search youtube for Hayden mongoose. Not sure about a free image... is anyone in India and is anyone using it this year in the IPL? The-Pope (talk) 09:57, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I wonder why Mongoose sponsor James Anderson, he's not exactly renowned for his big hitting. Nev1 (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Trescothick is meant to be using one at times this year: I'd really rather he didn't, but if he does, I'll get a photo or 100 of it. Harrias talk 18:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Tresco will earn one million pounds if he hits the ball over the Pavilion at Lord's using this bat. OrangeKnight (talk) 20:14, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah: I hope he ignores that and remembers that he's meant to be playing cricket and captaining his side.. Harrias talk 20:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Someone played with it in the county season last year and it was useless. When they say it's for big hitting they mean t is only for big hitting. You can't defend. S.G.(GH) ping! 11:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

While playing in the IPL, Matthew Hayden usually started with a conventionnal bat and, when "settled", switch to this one. OrangeKnight (talk) 13:16, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Guy Napier

Kittybrewster left this on my talk page:

Found on the internet: I would be most grateful if someone could do a lookup on the Marlborough College Register please for Guy Greville Napier (born 26 Jan 1884) who was there in 1901. He was Lieutenant in the 35th Sikhs and was killed at Loos on 25 Sep 1915. He was also a successful cricketer. (Coincidentally, Guy Napier's wife was living with the Bovill family (niece) until the time of her marriage in July 1915.) Captain Guy Greville Napier Born 26 Jan 1884, the son of T B Napier, LL.D, 25 Hendon Lane, Finchley Educated at Marlborough College from Jan 1898 to 1901 (XI 1899-1901) and at Pembroke College, Cambridge (BA, 1903; Univ. XI, 1904-07) Commissioned, Unattached List, 1907 Indian Army, 1908 Captain, 35th Sikhs, 1915 DOW in France, 25 Sep 1915 Sources: Marlborough College Register, 1843-1933; Pembroke College War List 1914-1918.

AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

This'll be the man: http://www.cricketarchive.co.uk/Archive/Players/14/14195/14195.html - pretty decent bowling stats. Andrew nixon (talk) 20:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)
I stubbed it but take not credit for finding him. Interesting guy. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Vincent Lindo

Just finished writing up a fairly stubby piece on this cricketer and have a question which someone may be able to answer. Lindo took eight wickets for 88 in an innings in his second match, and these were the only wickets he ever took in first-class cricket. Are these the best figures by any bowler where the number of wickets taken in the innings are also the number of wickets taken in the entire career? In other words, has anyone ever taken nine wickets or even 10 in an innings and not taken another wicket before or since? Johnlp (talk) 21:54, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Robert Gregory took 8-80 in the first innings of his only first-class match but also took a wicket in his second. I suspect we should, rather morbidly, look at players who made their debut just before either world war. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:37, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd say that's about right - the closest I can find are several 19th century cricketers: John Bevan (South Australia), who took 14 wickets including 8/36 in his only first-class game, William Brown (Tasmania), who took 15 wickets (!) including 8/31 in his only first-class game, and Herbert Knutton (Warwickshire), who took 10 wickets in two games including a haul of 9/100. However, I can only find records for 9- & and 10-wicket hauls in an innings, so there might be a better eight-wicket haul which were a player's only wickets. Yes, I think either pre-World War or 19th century games that were held less often than today - particularly the "colonies" with only one or two games a year before 1900. Cheers, IgnorantArmies 06:48, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
Thank you: lots of interesting snippets there. I can still remember being amazed as a teenager back in 1963 that a man could take so many wickets and then never get another game. Johnlp (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Image question

Does anyone recognise this photo of Shahid Afridi? I suspect it's a copyright violation but can't find where it originated. Nev1 (talk) 12:18, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Never mind, once I realised that strip was from the latest World Cup the image was easy to find. Nev1 (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

List A status of 1994 ICC Trophy

Just wondering if matches at the 1994 ICC Trophy were considered to be List A cricket. Thanks Hack (talk) 12:45, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

No. Only from 2005 onwards. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:54, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Dominic Cork squad number

Does anyone know Cork's squad number when he played for Derbyshire? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Squad numbers in county cricket are a fairly recent innovation. It's possible that Derbyshire may not have had squad numbers when he was there. JH (talk page) 20:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Is it really worth adding to the article? Nev1 (talk) 21:00, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Not essential, but would complete the infobox though. I think squad numbers were about in the 2003 Twenty20 Cup. I know Hampshire had them in that competition, I think Sussex did as well. Not sure about the other counties though. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:50, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Looks like 1 to me.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:10, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I'd go along with that, thanks MD! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

A job for an admin

Our occasionally slavish admiration for CricketArchive and CricInfo has led us to repeat one of their shared errors: the ground called "Victoria and Knypersley Social Welfare Centre" where Derbyshire played a little and Staffordshire have played a lot, is missing the second "i" of Victoria on both sites, and the wrong name is the heading for our article with the correct spelling being the redirect. It needs an admin to swap them round. Johnlp (talk) 22:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Adrian Shankar

Given this article some eyes on the Adrian Shankar article may be useful. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:20, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Amazing that stuff like this can still happen in amongst all of the "talent identification pathways" and "high performnce coaching". A WP:SPA noticed and tried to correct the DOB and illness story back in Nov 2009, but was reverted due to the incorrect info being referenced. Mattinbgn, I think the deception story should be in the article - or do we wait for further follow-up from more sources? The-Pope (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
There is enough now to make some addition to the article, as long as it is referenced and proportainate. I wouldn't start rewriting the article from the premise of an imposter (e.g. Ali Dia) just yet. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Amusingly, he is still listed on the Mongoose website as a sponsored player. He must have had a really good agent [3]... Hack (talk) 03:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
The cricinfo article is now pointing to a dead link, and I can't find it anywhere on the site now. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:56, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm just re-reading the cricinfo article - they don't pull any punches. I have adjusted the citation to include a quote from the now-departed article... Hack (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Damn, someone beat me to that legend that was Ali Dia! Now to find myself an agent that can get me into Hampshire and bolster their fragile batting!!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:25, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
"Oddly, however, when Shankar signed for Lancashire, the Cambridge coach was quoted in a press release referring to him as one of the finest young players the side had seen since John Crawley" - I'm sure Creepy would be offended! Did the counties he deceived not do some research, who's running them? Graham Souness??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Pierre Werner Cricket Ground

The article Pierre Werner Cricket Ground has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A search for references found no published (gBooks) references to support this article, nor any mentions of the subject. Fails WP:N and WP:V

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:01, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable cricket ground, no objection from me. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:02, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

monobook/vector stuff

Once upon a time a kind member of this project fiddled with my monobook page to get a button which automatically dropped a cricketer infobox onto the page for me. I also had one that enabled me to insert complex citations by opening up a field where I could input the info. They have all now disappeared. My monobook is not completely defunct because I still have extra menu buttons which I created for my toolbox on left side of screen. Anyone clued up on this stuff who could look at the monobook programming and show me how to fix it? S.G.(GH) ping! 12:34, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think I have it. S.G.(GH) ping! 12:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Daddles

Surprised to find we had no article about my favourite Australian cricketer of all time, so I created it. Can anyone confirm whether Daddles lives on, or has passed to the great duck house in the sky? I have a hunch he's still used in Nine Network coverage of IPL, but I'm not sure. --Dweller (talk) 15:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I can't recall seeing it lately on any Nine coverage -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Wow! Don't think I ever knew his name...I seem to vaguely recall seeing him on some Nine-originating highlights of the recent Ashes series, but may be mistaken.—User:MDCollins (talk) 23:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
Nine haven't covered IPL, it would have been the one day series... Hack (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Excellent article. I'm pretty sure Nine still used him last summer for the Ashes, although they gave him a bit of a revamp a few seasons ago. And now I've had a look, this (not at all a reliable source) would seem to confirm that Nine changed from the cartoon duck to a computer animated one for the 07/08 summer (there's also some interesting stuff about Daddles originally being used as subliminal advertising for Benson & Hedges that would be good to add to the article if an RS could be found). Jenks24 (talk) 09:22, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Non-notable T20 leagues

They're popping up all over the place! First this one and now this one! On the subject, not a tournament, but is this page really needed? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

A page on the qualification process for the 2012 World Twenty20 is certainly needed, but that isn't it! Andrew nixon (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
And a note of caution - just because a league doesn't have official T20 status doesn't mean it isn't notable. By those standards, the Indian Cricket League isn't notable, and nor is World Series Cricket. I'd argue that any fully professional league is notable, but neither of these leagues fits that standard as far as I can see. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
True, I'll amend my wording on further PRODs! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 08:55, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
Fully professional is a standard unlikely to be met even by some the top cricket-playing nations (eg the KFC Big Bash contained a number of semi-pro cricketers). Hack (talk) 00:57, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The Sydney Mail on google

On Google news, The Sydney Mail (which I'd never heard of until recently) is available from the 1860s to the 1930s. As articles always need images which are irrefutably PD-US (or PD-AUS from before 1946), this may be valuable as there are huge numbers of photos on cricket. For example, here. The Mail seemed to run reports on every Test match (I think) and all touring teams with lots of action photos. Some of them are of poor quality, probably due to the scans used, but there are many good ones of famous cricketers. It also seems Monty Noble wrote about cricket as well, but I haven't read much myself yet. If anyone has the patience, there could be a lot of images for articles in this. I've made a start, and will upload some shortly. --Sarastro1 (talk) 16:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

ipl flags

Template:Cr-IPL/Flags have these flags any usage outside wiki? Gnevin (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. I think they've been made up just for use here. They should be deleted. – PeeJay 07:24, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
They are on commons so can't be deleted for or as it doesn't apply over there but I could tfd the template Gnevin (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough. In that case, deleting the template will have to do. – PeeJay 09:52, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#Template:Cr-IPL.2FFlags Gnevin (talk) 17:58, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League

Non-notable league up for deletion. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 08:43, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Please make your notices more neutral in future, lest you be accused of canvassing. Jenks24 (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
League up for deletion with the nominator's reason being an argument of notability problems. There. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jack Davey

I've finally started the article on Jack Davey, leaving one notable Devon cricketer to go once he's done. I'm putting the article together from CA and CI and some other sources, but if anyone has any others sources they can add to it, that would be great. Hopefully some Gloucestershire books exist from the time he played for them, which someone has handy! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cricket umpire lever counter

I just came across Cricket umpire lever counter and was wondering whether this content is necessary. Would some sort of article (or section in the umpire article) on over and ball counting methods be appropriate? Hack (talk) 04:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge with the umpire article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:22, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Cyril Perkins

Cyril Perkins, who turned 100 earlier this month, made a single List A appearance in 1966 aged 55. Is this the oldest debut age in List A cricket? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

The Dick-a-Dick conundrum

Looking through the matches of the Australian Aboriginal cricket team in England in 1868 on cricketarchive I noticed that Dick-a-Dick [4] is listed as "Played as professional in Lancashire as Francis Crueze". A search shows that he played with East Lancashire and Nelson, the latter in 1879 as the club's first ever professional.[5]. However, a glance at our Dick-a-Dick entry puts us in a quandary as it clearly states that he died in 1870, a statement backed up by this official looking source [6] (annoyingly it states there is a commemorative plaque for him in an area of remote Victoria that I visited not long ago and could have taken a photo of I'd known at the time) and this newspaper article [7]. Of course, to make matters more interesting, this article [8] states he was still alive in 1884.

I've seen a dew documentaries on the 1868 tour and in that and what I've read there was certainly no mention of any Aboriginal player on that tour going onto play professional cricket in England and knowing of the racial politics of the time in Australia, I find it very doubtful that an Australian Aboriginal would be allowed to leave Australia to play professional cricket in England (although of course he may have snuck away from Australia like he did in 1868). So, the question remains, who was this Francis Crueze who played for Nelson in 1879? --Roisterer (talk) 00:23, 11 June 2011 (UTC) (who still can't believe Simon Katich has been given the shaft).

I know using Wikipedia as a source is a no-no but from Australian Aboriginal cricket team in England in 1868 - "The Central Board for Aborigines ruled in 1869 that it would be illegal to remove any Aborigine from the colony of Victoria without the approval of the government minister". It is inconceivable that Djungadjinganook would have been permitted to travel to England to become a professional cricketer and given the evidence attesting to his death in 1870 in western Victoria, it is almost certain that he never played for Nelson in 1879. I suspect "Francis Crueze" was more likely a person of Afro-Caribbean origin who adopted the persona of Dick-a-Dick, perhaps to avoid prejudice. (I have no evidence of this of course) -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:42, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
If you're right, I hope the locals didn't start throwing cricket balls enmasse at him, thinking that Dick-a-Dick would perform his party trick of knocking them away with his shield. As a matter of (possibly small) interest, in researching this, I found out that a song was written about Dick-a-Dick in the mid-1860s that became so famous it was a music hall hit in England. --Roisterer (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Nyland (Hampshire cricketer)

Nyland has been put up for a PROD by a Scottish user (always concerns me as the last Scot I spoke to confused cricket for hurling!) I created the article, provided a link to CA which is now a dead link. I've search CA and the name no longer appears. He doesn't appear on CI either. Given he played in a first-class match in 1789, I wonder if it has been discovered that he didn't exist, or his name was mistaken for another cricketer??? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:44, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

The match in which Nyland allegedly appears is on CricketArchive here and there is a footnote about Nyland. Looks like it's been updated since you wrote the article. Johnlp (talk) 19:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
The solution seems to be either let the PROD run its course, or redirect the article to John Nyren. Jenks24 (talk) 20:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
A redirect would seem sensible if there are records with the "Nyland" name in them that might lead someone to consult WP. Johnlp (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Thought it might have referred to Nyren. Thanks for clearing it up! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish Cricket

What is up with Irish Cricket ? I am, what some might call an Inclusionist, but coming across a number of Deletions on Irish cricket clubs this morning that are nothing more than than village cricket teams has me considering switching sides. I have to declare an small conflict of intrest here in that I play for a local English club side who a few summers ago went on cricket tour of Ireland, I say cricket tour it was realy a drinking tour with a bit of Criket thrown in, but for the WAG's we told them it was a cricket tour. We had the plesure to play against one of the teams that Mooretwin has created a page for, and while it was a very nice club it was nothing more than a village cricket club. I doubt any more than three or four clubs in Ireland should have articles, Cricket in Ireland is very much a minor sport. I am sure that Mooretwin means well but come on. VERTott 10:44, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

You may have a point, and it's being discussed above as to what would constitute a "cutoff" for Irish clubs in terms of notability. Every country has differences in terms of the importance of the sport and the level at which it is played. Obviously the notability criteria isn't clear on how to apply notability to clubs outside of England and Wales, and Australia. Let's see if we can agree the criteria and then revisit the articles. --HighKing (talk) 12:01, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Minor but growing, which it needs to continue to so we can see the Irish in whites at Lord's one day - IMO they deserve promotion. That said, we do as mentioned have a discussion going on about what constitutes notability in Irish club cricket. The leagues are notable, that I think is without disagreement. I do however agree that most of the clubs are non-notable (with perhaps the odd exception). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:16, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for not spotting that up the page, like it or not it would appear in the area of sports, throughout Wikipedia, the normal benchmark notability for team sports sits at the border between the professional and amateur game, with articles on amateur clubs needing to demonstrate coverage in external sources to be considered notable. For example the football team Maxwelltown Thistle FC is also up for deletion and clear parallels can be drawn with Clogher Cricket Club which plays at the very bottom of the Irish Cricket system, I have tried to find sources for them with no joy, even their own website does not appear to have been updated in over THREE years the last match report being from a game on 26 April. 2008. VERTott 06:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Clogher doesn't play at the very bottom of the Irish cricket system. It plays in the NCU Senior League. What sources are there for clubs playing in the Lincolnshire League? Teams in the Lincolnshire League are considered notable under the WP Cricket guidelines, so the same standard should apply here. Mooretwin (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Come on ... it plays in the FOURTH TIER. That IS the very bottom of the Irish cricket "system," such as it is. Mooretwin, I think you're under a serious misapprehension as far as sports notability criteria goes. The various criteria aren't based on "I think it's important." They're presumptive only, in so far as it's judged that a subject which meets one or more of the criteria would probably meet the GNG. Therefore (for instance) an ice hockey player who plays a single game in the National Hockey League isn't notable, per se, because he meets Criterion #1 of WP:NHOCKEY; it's that it's a certainty that a player skilled enough to reach that level, if only for a single game, will have garnered enough media attention to pass the GNG.

The fact of the matter is that cricket is a big deal in England, and it isn't in Ireland; the odds are much greater that lower level teams in England would meet the GNG. But, you know ... you can end the matter very simply. Just provide evidence that the Irish teams you favor pass the GNG, and no one can gainsay that, criteria or no.  ῲ Ravenswing ῴ  03:55, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, you're wrong. Senior 3 is not "the very bottom of the Irish cricket system". It is the bottom of senior cricket (senior cricket being the top level of cricket in Ireland) - there are eight divisions of cricket below NCU Senior 3. Mooretwin (talk) 10:09, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. I have been saying this for about a fortnight but Mooretwin keeps ignoring the "easy" solution to current Irish cricket AfD nominees. If they are notable then it really should not be that difficult to provide sources to GNG standards. No project guideline over-rules the community guidelines: the project guidelines are an adjunct, a handy reference point based on the opinion of people who have an involvement in a specific topic area. I mean no disrespect to those involved with specific projects, be it in the area of sport or, say, university or India topics.
I have seen statements several times during the various discussions that these clubs are well covered per GNG in Irish media etc. So prove it. From what I have read, I would assume that this is not difficult. Instead, we're having a long, often repetitive discussion across numerous WP pages. I really do not see what the issue is regarding this with regard to any specific club, anywhere (and indeed in any sport, but here we're talking cricket). Falling back on the project guideline should be a last resort, not the first port of call. And, frankly, if one has to utilise the last resort then the case is weak. Not irretrievable, but definitely weak. As far as I can make out, there have been only tangential "proofs" provided so far for the current Irish cricket AfDs which I have looked at, but it need not be this way.
If one good thing has come out of this, it is recognition that the cricket project guidelines need some attending to if they are to be used at all. Happen I think that most of the clarification debate which is now ensuing would never have occurred if some people had used some common sense in the first place & not tried to transpose standards, misrepresent etc, but that is just my view and so be it. Those people have their reasons for it and, yes, I know next to nothing about cricket other than chatting with M Atherton at Cambridge on a few occasions before he hit the big time. There might be an argument that the likes of Mooretwin are too involved to see the wood for the trees but, hey, this is a project and involvement is to be expected. One thing is for sure: I am not. - Sitush (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree, time to move this towards a conclusion 12 days is long enough to provide "such obvious sources". Mtking (talk) 23:52, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I wasn't under the impression that a clock was ticking. Again I ask, what's the hurry? And why is this discussion splitting over two topics - can we perhaps keep this in one place, and keep personal comments out of it altogether? Ta. --HighKing (talk) 01:01, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Rose Bowl's 1st Test!

I managed to get down to the Rose Bowl and view the cricket which was on offer, which unfortunately was only 38 overs. Had a nice, if brief (under 3 minutes) chat with Shane Warne and Michael Vaughan about the ground. Good to be part of cricketing history! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:16, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Some of us might regard Hampshire's relentless pursuit of Test status as on a par with Milton Keynes Dons F.C.'s pursuit of Wimbledon F.C.: but then we used to watch good cricket at the May's Bounty ground, Dean Park, United Services cricket ground... My garden needs the rain, though, so all is not lost. Johnlp (talk) 23:38, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Once the new access road is completed, the golf course extended and the hotel built it'll be an even more fantastic venue... shame about the outgrounds there. I remember when I was 10 and watching Rahul Dravid play at Portsmouth. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:19, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The oldest international?

Portugal's captain at the European Division Two tournament that started today, Akbar Saiyad, is 64 years old. Anyone know of an older international in cricket, or indeed any other sport? And if he is, I take it that him being the oldest international would warrant an article even though he doesn't strictly meet our notability requirements? Andrew nixon (talk) 16:45, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

None that I know off, then again I pay little attention to others sports. There was Raja Maharaj Singh, but he of course didn't play international cricket. Not sure he would meet notability purely on age though... AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Fred Davis was 79 when he retired from professional snooker. I don't have my Wisden's in front of me but I seem to recall a mention of a Swiss(?) player in his 60s who bowled donkey drops from a metre behind the stumps. --Roisterer (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Vis Cricket Club

Vis Cricket Club mentioned on Three Men go to Venice! Dara Ó Briain making a late claim to play for Ireland! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cornwall CCC List A players/archive1

Just wondered if anyone from this project fancied having a look over List of Cornwall CCC List A players and making any comments at the FLC: Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Cornwall CCC List A players/archive1. It's been there for over a month with only two reviews! Any help welcome. Harrias talk 16:50, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Leigh Brownlee

This "slightly" obscure cricketer who played 82 first-class matches a century ago (including just one for Somerset, which is where I came across him) had a career in journalism that saw him end up as editor of the Daily Mirror for three years in the 1930s. I can find almost nothing on him in terms of his journalism, and I can't see that there is a journalism project anywhere on WP. Does anyone have any ideas where to look? As it currently stands, his article is probably a bit unbalanced in terms of his overall career and impact. Johnlp (talk) 22:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Can't help you myself, but there is a journalism project: see WP:JOURN. Might be worth asking there. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 05:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
A Google books search yields a few results. They're all quite old, so locating a hard copy may be a challenge (depending on where you live).[9][10][11][12] Hack (talk) 06:57, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I'll contact WP:JOURN and see what happens, and see if my local library, all of whose books look to be pretty ancient, has any of the relevant volumes. Johnlp (talk) 07:46, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Ronald Hooker

As I go through the Minor Counties bluelinks that Bobo192 has compiled, most of players are rather innocuous and usually a brief body of writing detailing their statistics and achievements in their handful of matches is suffice for such articles. Normally I have the confidence to attempt players who have played under 100 first-class matches and were nothing special during their time. However, having started the last Buckinghamshire redlink on Ronald Hooker, I don't feel confident enough to attempt him, having neither the knowledge of the game in the 50s and 60s, or any sources on him. This could however be an article a more seasoned professional among us could write up in greater detail than I ever could! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Ron Hooker was a Middlesex stalwart in the 1960s. I'll see if I can find time tomorrow to expand his article a little, though I can't promise anything. JH (talk page) 21:25, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
And he had one brilliant batting season in, I think, 1959 when I remember he was spoken of as an England possible. Johnlp (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I note his name has been changed to Ron on Cricket Archive since I compiled the list. Was unaware of this at the time. Bobo. 00:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
He was certainly commonly known as "Ron" rather than "Ronald". JH (talk page) 08:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
And I've now moved his article to reflect this. JH (talk page) 08:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I've expanded the article. I've concentrated on his time with Middlesex and left the Bucks part of his career for AssociateAffiliate. Also I didn't have enough time to write up his List A performances with Middlesex, with the exception of his remarkable figures of 8-4-6-6 in a JPL match against Surrey, which demanded to be included (much as it hurt me as a Surrey supporter). JH (talk page) 20:41, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Darrell Hair

I noticed that this article has some poor English, gaps in its account and is possibly suspect for BLP and NPOV violations.

I'd appreciate it if someone took a careful look, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 14:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

North West Senior League 2

Although I !voted, I'm closing this club notability guideline discussion as no-consensus for change, based on my own assessment as well as that of others below. The discussion had become tl;dr and was going nowhere. Proponents of change might want to start an new discussion with a succinct and well framed proposal, giving consideration to comments made here. Moondyne (talk) 07:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is a club that has played at level two of the Irish North West Senior League inherently notable? It has been claimed at various AfDs that WP:CRIC's guidelines for the inherent notability of clubs that have played in the Lancashire League etc apply to this league also. - Sitush (talk) 00:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That claim seems unlikely to me. The Lancashire League has a long history, and for much of its existence has been arguably the strongest club competition in England. It seems unlikely that the North West Senior League is at all comparable, and certainly not at level 2. JH (talk page) 09:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Particularly so in Ireland, which has no first-class structure to feed into, unlike Lancashire or equivalent English leagues. --Sarastro1 (talk) 09:32, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The thinking behind the guideline on club notability was that clubs in the ECB leagues and the Lancashire Leagues represented the highest present-day level of the amateur sport, where individuals might not be notable but the clubs could be. For clubs, the additions to this from below the cut-off line were only likely to be those with a historic claim to fame, such as Lansdown CC or Mitcham CC. I don't see that these Irish clubs are of comparable standing, but maybe the guideline needs revisiting. Johnlp (talk) 12:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree with John, in that the guidelines need revisiting, perhaps to make the guidlines for the inclusion of club sides outside of England and Australia more clear. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 14:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I would agree there needs to be some clarity here perhaps amend "for Great Britain" to read :
* For English and Welsh cricket clubs, those clubs which have competed in the Minor Counties Championship, ECB Premier Leagues, Bradford Cricket League, Lancashire League, or Central Lancashire League are considered to meet the notability requirements.
Leave the Australia entry as is and add an extra bullet point "For other clubs" :
* For other club teams not meting the above criteria they are notable if they meet the General Notability Guidelines.
Mtking (talk) 21:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
That would certainly be an improvement. Problems will remain - what happens about Indian clubs, Sri Lankan clubs, West Indies etc ? - but we have to start somewhere and it does concern me that some people have been transposing the CRIC guideline at AfDs when it seems to me to be implausible. I know not a lot about the sport despite being a Mancunian (rugby is was my game) but there are some people who do seem to know a fair bit who are currently stretching the CRIC guidelines to the limit & using a stock reply at various AfDs etc. They may be right, but some clarity would be useful from a community perspective and, on the basis of the comments above, it would seem that they may in fact be misguided. - Sitush (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Agreed that the issue of Club Cricket in other nations will need to be addressed, however this area is about clubs that are not fully professional so if an editor wish to propose that a given club league in a country is sufficiently notable that it's teams would automatically be then that can be considered then. I am thinking that is only likely to be in the older established Test Playing nations (Australia, England, India, New Zealand, South Africa and West Indies) and by by no means all of them have a strong club cricket history. Mtking (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Since, this is I believe, just a clarification of the wording, I will make the change, if anyone feels that it is a substantive change in the guideline feel free to revert. Mtking (talk) 11:08, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that's fine. ISTR we hoped when we set the guideline before that editors with knowledge of other countries would add thoughts about appropriate levels of coverage for club cricket elsewhere, but it never happened. Johnlp (talk) 10:47, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Disgraceful decision to amend the guidelines specifically with the purpose of excluding articles about senior Irish cricket clubs from the encyclopaedia. The decision also seems to be based on fallatious reasoning, e.g.

  • Jhall chooses to compare the North West Senior League only with the Lancashire League, yet the guidelines recognise the notability not only of the Lancashire League but of ECB Premier Leagues. The North West Senior League also has a "long history".
  • Sarastro1 says that Ireland has no first-class structure to feed into, unlike Lancashire or equivalent English leagues. It does, however, have a ODI international team to feed into - and players from this league have and do represent Ireland. Players from the league have also "fed into" the first-class English county structure, e.g. William Porterfield, who played for Donemana Cricket Club in the NW Senior League while an Ireland international, and [now plays country cricket for Warwickshire http://www.cricketeurope4.net/DATABASE/ARTICLES/articles/000056/005603.shtml]. Mooretwin (talk) 17:11, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see that this does exclude Irish clubs: it merely now confirms that the definition that is there applies to clubs in England and Wales, rather than to clubs in the UK as a whole. No mention of Ireland (or of Scotland). Come up with some evidence that the standards are broadly equivalent, and that players feed through to other more senior teams, and then come up with a line that can be inserted in the guidelines for Irish clubs, and there's no reason why the consensus should not come down on your side. I would reckon, though, that you'd have more of a struggle convincing me that clubs in the second division of this league are notable: the England and Wales guideline excludes clubs in the feeder leagues to the ECB Leagues, so why should Ireland be different? Johnlp (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Johnlp's point about including second division and below clubs. For clubs in England and Wales they have to play in an ECB Premier League, so I don't think we should include those in feeder leagues. I do however think we need to look at including teams from the top division of each of the 4 main leagues in Ireland (I think it's 4: North West, Northern, Leinster and Munster). User:Andrew nixon might come in handy as he has a good understanding of Irish club cricket. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:15, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Munster isn't really a top league yet, but the top divisions of the North West, Northern and Leinster leagues are not a million miles from the standards of the ECB Premier Leagues. They do, as said above, feed an Ireland ODI side that is ranked 10th in the world and players are plucked out of the leagues to play county cricket. The LCU league has produced two recent England internationals, and I'm not sure many leagues in England can claim that! Andrew nixon (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
If any is guilty of "fallatious reasoning" it is you Mooretwin, firstly for the "logic" that just because teams in given leagues in one country are automatically notable then a teams in leagues in another country are similarly automatically notable. Secondly for the assertion that the change was for the "purpose of excluding articles about senior Irish cricket clubs", it was clearly not, it was to clarify your misunderstanding of the intention of the guideline. Mtking (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
You're guilty of misrepresentation: never have I argued that "just because teams in given leagues in one country are automatically notable then a teams [sic] in leagues in another country are similarly automatically notable". And I simply don't believe your claim about the motivation behind your intervention here. Sorry. Mooretwin (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You have argued that the Irish teams should be treated the same as the English ones. Frankly I don't care what you think my motivation is. I intend to revert your revision of the main page as you have not shown here what is wrong with the clarification. Mtking (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the Irish senior leagues are more notable than the ECB county leagues, therefore, by the logic of the WP guidelines, clubs playing in those leagues are notable - indeed, more notable. I have shown what's wrong with the change: (1) it was made by an editor with a vested interest (i.e. wanting to support his campaign of deletion against Irish cricket articles, (2) the only claimed support for it was based on fallatious reasoning as outlined above, (3) the Irish senior leagues have been shown by their treatment in Wisden as being more notable than ECB county leagues, therefore by the logic of the guidlines, clubs in the Irish senior leagues are notable. Mooretwin (talk) 23:10, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Then propose an addition for Irish teams below, backed up by the evidence that they are deemed so by multiple parties. Mtking (talk) 23:17, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
You may also wish to read WP:NRVE where it clearly says "No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" Mtking (talk) 00:03, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Irish Club Team Notability

So the question is are club teams playing in Leinster Senior League, Munster League, NCU Senior League or the North West Senior League likely to pass the WP:GNG as a sample I looked at the fist team listed (which there exists a WP Article) from the top level of each League (excluding the Munster League as it does not have a article)

Also it is worth considering are the Leagues themselves so important to the history and understanding of the game that clubs playing in them are of historical importance, well the lack of Munster League is a good heads up to that but :

So unless I have missed something here I can't see how the Leagues themselves so important to the history and understanding of the game that the teams playing here should be considered automatically notable. Mtking (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Wisden 2011 on page 770 lists under "Winners of Irish Leagues and Cups" the winners of the following competitions: Bob Kerr Irish Senior Cup, Leinster League, Leinster Cup, Munster League, Munster Cup, Northern Union League, Northern Union Cup, North West League, North West Cup. I think that could be used as evidence that those competitions are notable, and possibly that the clubs competing in them are notable as well. (But I agree with those who say that only the top divisions of the leagues would be notable.) JH (talk page) 08:49, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry if I was not clear, I am not saying there is any question about the Leagues being notable, I accept that they are, just that I can't see anything that would indicate that they are especially notable enough to make the teams that compete in them automatically notable. Mtking (talk) 10:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Interesting that Wisden deems senior Irish club cricket notable. I wonder, Jhall1, if you can advise whether Wisden lists winners of the ECB county leagues (e.g. the Devon County League). After all, it is the unsubstantiated claim of two editors here that these ECB county leagues are of superior standard to Irish senior leagues, thereby supporting the notability of the teams playing in those leagues and the claimed non-notability of teams playing in Irish senior leagues. Mooretwin (talk) 22:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think I have ever compared the standard of the leagues, as you can see from the above just the notability of the teams in them and I can see nothing that would indicate that they should be deemed automatically to be notable, if the guidelines are to be seen by the rest of the WP community as serious then it has to be shown that these non-professional clubs meet the community agreed standards and sorry but they don't. Mtking (talk) 23:01, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the Irish senior leagues are more notable than the ECB county leagues, therefore, by the logic of the WP guidelines, clubs playing in those leagues are notable - indeed, more notable. Mooretwin (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
That may be your feelings but you need to show that with the evidence that others are writing about them and their cricket achievements (and not stories about fires at club houses). I am open to changing my mind but from what I have been able to find, there is not the coverage of the teams that the WP:GNG calls for. Mtking (talk) 23:13, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not my "feelings" - it is demonstrated by how Wisden - a receognised authority on cricket - treats the respective leagues. Mooretwin (talk) 08:11, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I've amended the guideline so that it reads: "for club teams outside England and Wales and Australia, those clubs which compete in leagues recorded in Wisden Cricketer's Almanac are considered to meet the notability requirements." Mooretwin (talk) 08:22, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

No way unless you can show that they are going to meet the WP:GNG this will bring the whole of the guideline into disrepute. Mtking (talk) 08:30, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
At best this would permit the top level of each league, not all the ones below them. JH makes this point above. There is also the GNG issue of "significant coverage" usually by multiple independent sources. One source does not cut the mustard. I would strongly suggest actually reading WP:GNG. - Sitush (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
In Wisden 2011, there are eight pages of coverage of the ECB leagues, with full tables of the top divisions of each of them, with every top-division club's record mentioned. There are three pages of coverage of cricket in Ireland as a whole, including a page largely devoted to results of One-day Internationals played in Ireland in 2010, but only a single four-line paragraph covers the leagues, plus a five-line list of the 2010 winners of the four individual leagues and their cup competitions, and the all-Ireland cup. Johnlp (talk) 21:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Then at best Wisden could only be used to say that the leagues and cups in Ireland are notable, but not the teams competing in them. Mtking (talk) 22:28, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
But by the same logic, the teams in ECB premier leagues are not notable, yet WikiProject Cricket says that they are. Mooretwin (talk) 08:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That may or may not be the case, if you think that the guidelines on ECB premier and other leagues are wrong then you are free to start a new section below arguing for a change. The issue here is the Irish club cricket teams and the lack of significant coverage the teams get, dispite a number of requests I have not seen one single source that covers the cricket activities of the club in detail on any of the Irish clubs currently up for deletion - are there any ? Mtking (talk) 08:38, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think the guidelines on ECB premier and other leagues are wrong: on the contrary, I think they are right, and that the same guidelines should apply to Irish teams. Your issue with sourcing applies also to teams in the ECB leagues, yet Wikipedia considers those teams to be notable. Mooretwin (talk) 08:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Two wrongs do not make a right and you are still failing to provide the sources on the Irish teams - they are not notable without them and what ever is done here counts for nothing if sources don't exit to prove they are notable. Mtking (talk) 09:10, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't agree that they are two wrongs. I think they are two rights. The encyclopaedia is well served by providing stubs and articles about clubs at this level in both England and Ireland. What harm or damage is caused to the encyclopaedia by their inclusion? Mooretwin (talk) 12:16, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
That would be my interpretation, MTKing. However, the various AfDs currently in place on this subject matter appear all to have been relisted recently because many of the people who have expressed an opinion here have chosen not to comment directly on them. I have the feeling that this lengthy discussion will carry no particular weight in those debates. Of course, it is the prerogative of each contributor to comment where they feel fit. But things do seem to be becoming a bit blurred on the various AfDs and I would be pleasantly surprised if a patrolling admin would actually take the time to review the discussion here. Furthermore, my past experience of how Project guidelines are treated at AfD leads me to suspect that they would be ignored without any direct involvement of the project in those discussions. My experience is limited, but that appears to be the general trend. It is not helped by various (in my opinion) misrepresentations in those individual discussions regarding what the WP:CRIC guidelines actually said/currently say. I vaguely recall one uninvolved person proposing somewhere recently saying that the Burndennett AfD should be allowed to run its course and that if the outcome is deletion then a mass AfD should be instigated for all clubs at the same level in that league unless GNG can otherwise be met individually. That opinion is starting to make more sense to me than it did at the time I first saw it. - Sitush (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Lets recap - and please excuse me if I leave out a point that you believe is relevant. This discussion is about the notability of Irish cricket clubs. This project has guidelines to assist with classifying whether or not a cricket club is notable. The current guidelines only comment on "Great Britain" (but are in essence English and Welsh clubs). At this AfD for a Scottish club, the article was deleted since the notability for Great Britain does not mention Scotland (although other Scottish clubs have articles such as Clydesdale Cricket Club and Musselburgh Cricket Club). But the Scottish National Cricket League (with two divisions) is a stub article and the clubs don't have articles. The Irish league, it could be argued, is a similar structure. So the question is, is the national senior league (and divisions) notable? In fact, if we take a leaf out of the football WikiProject where some here are also active, clubs like Hebburn Town F.C. or Whickham F.C. who are playing in the Northern Premier League Division One North or Division 2 in the Northern Football League (England) which are at levels 8,9 and 10 are notable enough for their own articles. Personally, I see no harm in having articles on clubs that participate in a national league, and editors who write these articles should be encouraged rather than berated. The articles are not "rubbish" or "spam", and don't bring this project or Cricket into disrepute. In fact, it may be appropriate to *create* the articles for Scottish clubs. Thoughts? --HighKing (talk) 10:19, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is fine to have articles on the leagues, and in cases where the the clubs pass WP:GNG, on the clubs, but we have notability rules for a reason and I keep asking and as of now no one can show any coverage that would pass WP:GNG for the clubs in question. On the subject of the wording which you have reverted, what is your concern, do you not agree that Great Britain does not cover Ireland so what exactly is the issue, there was agreement with the wording when it was changed, only after it was changed did Mooretwin or you have a problem, nothing significant has changed, it has just clarified it. Mtking (talk) 11:11, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The wording you changed, that I reverted, certainly wasn't agreed. Where was the agreement? You proposed some new wording at 21:43 on 8th June, one other editor commented, and you made the change next morning at 11:08. What's the hurry?
And following the change another editor then agreed - and it was not for 2 days before some one disagreed for the reason he saw that it excluded something that was not included in the first place. The hurry was that an editor was mis-representing it at multiple AfD's. You have still not explained what your problem is with the change.Mtking (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
The notability guidelines for clubs notes "It is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure" and this is still relevant. The grass roots structure in Ireland is different than England and Wales, and the club sizes are also smaller. Many Irish cricket clubs get coverage in local newspapers. If we take a leaf out of other sports Wikiprojects such as football, the notability criteria is simple "All teams that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria." - I propose we apply the same criteria for cricket? --HighKing (talk) 12:23, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
That works fine for a sport such as soccer where National Cup level is almost universally played at professional or semi-professional level, but cricket is NOT soccer a better comparison would be with sports such as Rugby League or Baseball and the problem with your assertion that clubs that have played in National cups meet WP:N is that it does not stand up to the reality of the situation, look at the links to the three top-tear Irish above and you will see that they probably don't meet WP:N, changing this guideline does not magically alter that fact; the guidelines have to reflect the real life situation. Mtking (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
In life I am a firm believer in the concept of K.I.S.S., so why try and second guess the relevant strengths of cups and leagues across countries and just any professional club or team is likely to be notable any amateur club or team is, if external sources exist ? VERTott 06:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree with High King that Scotland would be better served with the creation of articles about its senior-level cricket clubs, and also that an approach to cricket similar to that in football would be useful. Mtking makes a spurious attempt to say that cricket and football aren't similar, because "soccer at national cup level is almost universally played at professional or semi-professional level". This is ironic, because many of the clubs, articles about which he is campaigning to delete, employ professional cricketers, and many football clubs playing in the Irish Cup are entirely amateur. Mooretwin (talk) 08:18, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked could you come up with some names of pros playing for Burndennett. You appear not to have done so, although you did produce an apparently random list of names. You, Mooretwin, were the person who originally raised the comparison across countries notion. Are you now agreeing that it should be discounted? - Sitush (talk) 08:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I used the example of football because that Project has a guideline relating to notability of clubs, and it has a very simple rule. It doesn't seem that Rugby has a similar guideline - I can't find one at any rate. Is there perhaps another sport that has notability guidelines for clubs? Mtking makes the point that football is played at a professional or semi-professional level at a National Cup level - that's simply not true. For example in Scotland, Queen's Park F.C. are a completely amateur club. In England for example A.F.C. Kempston Rovers are amateur and playing in the United Counties Football League. As Mooretwin pointed out, many Irish clubs playing in the Irish Cup are also entirely amateur. As Verlott says above, a simple rule is better, and participation in a national league or cup seems like a good starting point (keeping in mind the different standards, customs and organizations of each country. Are there any other suggestions? --HighKing (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Well the starting point is to look at which club teams meet WP:N and I must confess to agreeing with and have some element of sympathy towards Mooretwin in respect of some (well a lot really) of the English club teams that the current guide would class as notable would fail the WP:GNG, if you look at the first of the English leagues listed Bradford Cricket League only one team (out of 25) has a WP article Pudsey St Lawrence Cricket Club (if the Bradford Cricket League page is to be believed) and that is sourced to either the club or the league if you look on the net (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) nothing really from reliable sources, a look for news gets you 12 hits none about actual cricket at the club, and books again nothing (other than a room hire directory). A look at Category:Lancashire League cricket clubs shows more clubs in Lancashire, but I have not looked into them yet but will do in the morning if required. Mtking (talk) 12:08, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Mtking, the reason why individual topics set up WikiProjects and create their own guides is because of their subject matter expertise, and they're in the best position to create more appropriate guides for these topics. The GNG and other general guides help for articles not covered by subject-matter-specific guides, and this is why we must decide here as to what is applicable to cricket, and these subject-specific guides supercede the more general guides in practice. --HighKing (talk) 13:14, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
But if those guidelines are to have credibility with the wider WP community they need to show that they are grounded in at least a sensible understanding in the reality of which clubs are likely to meet WP:N. Mtking (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
For Ireland, the obvious standard to apply is participation in senior cricket, i.e. membership of the four senior provincial leagues. Mooretwin (talk) 12:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
This whole area of cricket club notability is a bit of a mess, even in the areas where WP:CRIN seems to have a handle on it. If you look at the List of English and Welsh cricket league clubs, which is where the clubs above the line in England and Wales are listed (three years out of date, though), it's a sea of red. The Category:English cricket clubs has 135 articles in it, and I suspect up to half of them fall below the CRIN line. I know that at least one article about a cricket club that theoretically qualifies under this guideline was Prod'd in the past couple of years, without notification to the project or the original author (I was that author, and didn't know it'd gone until I looked just now). If the line was put in to try to establish some credible cut-off point (which is how I recollect it), then it isn't working. Perhaps it should be discarded, or reworded to the effect that this project regards it as a sensible policy for cricket clubs but that it is only advisory and that GNG or WP:CLUB are the real arbiters. (BTW, User:Mtking's rewrite seemed good to me: the reference to "Great Britain" is clearly wrong.)
If that's a way forward for England and Wales, then an equivalent advisory ruling on Irish clubs, assuming User:Andrew_nixon's view is accepted that they seem to be broadly equivalent to the ECB League clubs in terms of playing standards (and he's the expert), would seem to me to have Irish leagues' top division clubs getting this project's muted support, but second division ones having a tougher fight to justify themselves on through GNG. In all cases, of course, it's much easier to support articles that have some content about the club's history, past successes, famous players etc etc - if they don't have this kind of information, then the WP:CLUB line about putting them into the articles about the geographical location Xxxx under a "sports in Xxxx" heading looks pretty wise to me. Johnlp (talk) 17:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
How about replacing the current wording (i.e. replacing the colon and list) with something along the lines of :
Clubs playing in very top division of club cricket are likely to be notable. The relevant test for notability of all club teams should be either WP:GNG or WP:CLUB, however for the purpose of this guideline the scope of their activities does not need to be national or international in scale, however information about the club and its activities must be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources.
Create a new page in this example Wikipedia:WikiProject Cricket\Top Club Leagues to list the top divisions of club cricket the only condition for inclusion would be that the the League has it's own WP article (to make sure that the League is notable), and would include Leinster Senior League Division 1, NCU Senior League - Premier League and North West Senior League 1 along with all the ECB Premier Leagues as well as all the Australian Grade Cricket Leagues. (I will work on the starting list over the next day or so).Mtking (talk) 21:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree. Why restrict only to the top divisions of the senior leagues? Mooretwin (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I think you have misinterpreted my intention, that is not what I was trying to say, teams in the top divisions are likely to be, but any club could be - how about :
Clubs playing in very top division of club cricket are likely to be notable. The relevant test for notability of all any club team (top division or not) should be either WP:GNG or WP:CLUB, however for the purpose of this guideline the scope of their activities does not need to be national or international in scale, however information about the club and its activities must be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. If a club team meets either either WP:GNG or WP:CLUB as detailed above not playing in a top division is not grounds for deletion.
Mtking (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Still disagree. Why not just allow articles about senior clubs? Mooretwin (talk) 22:34, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
As others have said, including you, there is no indication that "senior clubs" as a group meet notability and if we did say they were, knowing that fact this guideline would not be credible. Mtking (talk) 22:51, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't think you can have a global blanket rule here because the quality of cricket is going to vary widely and the impact of the top cricket clubs in terms of their overall importance to national and international sport in the individual countries won't be the same. I wouldn't want to see a deluge of articles about first division Albanian teams, for example, because I suspect they would not be up to an acceptable cricket standard or very important in overall Albanian life. I am prepared to accept clubs in the top divisions of club cricket competitions in those countries where they play both Test/ODI and/ a first-class cricket competition, but to draw the advisory line there (and make clear it is advisory). With countries that don't have three tiers of cricket competition such as Ireland, it gets more difficult, but I think it is up then to someone to prove that the top division Irish clubs are equal in standing to clubs in the first tiers of competitions in other countries: in playing records, history, former players who have moved up into high levels of cricket. I really don't think Irish Second Division teams should have much of a hope, unless there are special circumstances that can be drawn out to show compliance with WP:GNG or WP:Club. I'm not trying to be discouraging to User:Mooretwin, but if we are in the business of drawing a line somewhere, it has as far as possible to be a straight line, not one with a kink to favour Irish second division clubs: there have been plenty of English non-ECB League clubs that have been discouraged over the years, and it isn't fair on them and on the editors who tried to write articles on them now to lower standards or to indicate that lower division clubs now pass some verifiable standard or meet some measureable approval from this project when they don't. Johnlp (talk) 23:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
It's late so will keep this short, which is exactly what is needed here, in a very complicated game that most of the rest of the world fails to understand I do not see why the rules for club cricket can not be in contrast blinding simple :- "If they meet the WP:GNG or point 2 of WP:CLUB" 10 words and everyone knows where they stand (personal I am a middle and leg guy). This is fair in that it does not discriminant between countries, does not need for a judgment on which leagues are comparable to other leagues and there is no need to maintain a separate list of top leagues, but above all it lets non-cricket playing readers judge an article. VERTott 00:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't see the harm in mentioning the leagues, but take your point about understanding of the game outside the ex-British empire. Mtking (talk) 01:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I favour an inclusive guideline. Why exclude? Why have a ridiculous situation of having to delete articles when teams get relegated from one senior division to another, and then creating them again the next year if they are promoted? Utter nonsense. Let's do a service to the reader and provide basic information about senior clubs. Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
In reply to Johnlp's point about non-ECB League clubs not having articles - the relevant comparison here is between Irish senior leagues and ECB leagues: not non-ECB leagues. Mooretwin (talk) 09:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Vertott's proposal is pointless as it just applies general WP guidelines therefore defeating the purpose of having a specific guidelines for cricket. May as well just delete the whole guideline if that is what we are to have. Mooretwin (talk) 09:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
My I ask, will you only be happy with a guideline that says that all the articles that you have created on Irish Clubs are notable ? Because if that is the case we may as well end this now as that is unlikely to ever be acceptable to everyone else. Mtking (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's just focus on something sensible that we can get a consensus on. --HighKing (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal

Ok I wish to make a proposal, based in part on Johnlp's, Vertott's and my contributions above to replace the text of the "Clubs, teams and venues" section of the guide with :

Following on from the above,

  • For clubs and teams taking part in major cricket matches they are notable under the conditions of WP:N and WP:ORG; as are venues used in such matches.
  • For clubs and teams taking part in all other matches, it is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure. Any club whose cricket activities and information can be verified by multiple (as defined here), third-party, independent, reliable sources is notable.

Please be aware "Minor cricket" is a specific term in the sport that does not necessarily imply a lack of notability; as in parallel with sports like association football and baseball, many cricket clubs in "minor leagues" are professionally run and do employ professional players. It is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure.

A venue (aka ground), that is in regular usage by a notable club ensures its own notability per se. Beyond a purely cricketing outlook, a venue is a recognised named site with a fixed geographic location and established community associations of a permanent nature.

  • Support as proposer. Mtking (talk) 04:03, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - far too restrictive. Let's have an inclusive guideline that allows for the reader to be provided with comprehensive coverage of senior cricket, in the same way as, for example, the guidelines on association football do. Mooretwin (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I do not understand "that its regular usage". Should it read "that is in regular usage"? - Sitush (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Clearer than the exiting text, inline with other guidelines, and understandable by non-cricket playing editors. VERTott 11:14, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose - I'm not sure why, based on those guidelines, we need specific Wikiproject Cricket guidelines, or guidelines from domain experts, at all. These guidelines would result in the deletion of many articles on Cricket clubs (from all countries), and are more restrictive that previous guidelines. It would essentially turn this project into an exclusive English/Australian cricket project. I'd propose a guideline similar to the notability guidelines found in football which are just as easy to follow. For example, these guidelines would easily permit (and encourage) the creation of articles on clubs in Cricket España ECCL 1, or perhaps even the clubs playing in the Cyprus Cricket Association top league. I'd propose the following amendment:
  • For clubs and teams taking part in all other matches, it is necessary to take an individual view about each country in terms of its own grassroots structure. All clubs that have played in the national cup (or the national level of the league structure in countries where no cup exists) are assumed to meet WP:N criteria. Teams that are not eligible must be shown to meet broader WP:N criteria.
Comment - I am not sure how that would work. Eg: as far as I can make out, Ireland does not have a "national" league but rather four provincial leagues, and so there isn't a "national level" and, from an "expert" comment above, there is not even a co-relationship in abilities etc between the 4 provincial leagues. Similarly, there could be more than one national cup and some of them might involve "one day wonders", a club which has managed to get to the first round of a national cup (potentially once, aeons ago) due to qualifying via a subsidiary competition. A project cannot ride roughshod over GNG and I can see that this might do so. . - Sitush (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm ... not sure why you've not picked up on the "National Cup" specifically mentioned above....and copied from the Football Wikiproject pretty much verbatim. And we're not trying to solely address country-by-country, but have a set of guidelines for any country. Hence, even though Ireland doesn't have a single national league, it does have the Irish Senior Cup. And "one day wonders" would be notable just for that fact, no? Anyway, it's a starting point to try to be a little more inclusive, taking into account the many different structures and national organizations out there. At least these rules will exclude many "pub sides", etc, and keep the clubs at a reasonable level. --HighKing (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I have picked up on the national cup - I referred to it. Please do not lecture me about inclusionism. If it meets GNG then I am a happy bunny. If it does not then it should not be here, end of. If a club has played in a national cup or a national league then the sources should be available. So show them. The onus is on those who wish to see an article survive. This is precisely why I rescued Churchill Machine Tool Company from AfD and virtually solo took it to GA in a couple of months. Less waffle here and more action on the awkward articles relating to Irish cricket would resolve Mooretwin's issues, would they not? The same would apply to rugby, football or pretty much anything else.
You will note that so far I have not !voted. I am still thinking round the problem, but that does not exclude the GNG principle. - Sitush (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Lecture? Lol. Take it easy - there's nothing personal going on here and you don't need to produce a Wiki-CV. I simply meant that you make a point about Ireland not having a "national" league, which is a point I never made, and I make a point that the fact that while the Irish teams sparked off this discussion, we should be trying to create widely applicable guidelines, not picking off country by country.
Also, you previously said that a project cannot ride roughshot over GNG - but those guidelines can be superceded (in a sense) by topic-specific guidelines. While cricket is played at a much lower standard/level outside of the cricket-playing giants, I believe a simple guideline such as I suggested would work, and be a little more inclusive. But maybe a little too inclusive - maybe it needs some tweaking, but I think its a better starting point that the original proposition. --HighKing (talk) 22:36, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I said "Eg:" (Ireland being an example where the national league part could not apply). I then went on to address the national cup part of the proposal, which I thought might be suspect also. Forget it, though, since others have weighed in and are saying things better than I did. - Sitush (talk) 23:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose the amendment as it would clearly allow clubs that are not notable to claim notability, not only the Irish Teams, but also as Johnlp said above "Albanian teams", since club cricket is by and large wholly amateur it is appropriate for the guidelines not to cover them. The comparison with soccer is also unfair, the two games are not comparable in terms of coverage and following. Mtking (talk) 23:05, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I'm sorry, but the cup thing doesn't work for cricket, nor is soccer, with its unified system where Bemerton Heath Harlequins F.C. might one day meet Manchester United F.C. on equal terms (for a few minutes), a realistic model. In cricket, if England (and Wales) is the "most organised" club cricket country (which is arguable, but probably correct) then it has two cup competitions and a lot of first-tier clubs (in league terms) that don't enter either, or don't get very far. And winners of one of these cups (the national village cricket competition) may qualify under GNG (it's quite well covered), but those that come second, or reach the quarter-finals, or whatever, are doing awfully well... but are they notable? Equally, doing it simply on "top division of league" doesn't get around the "Albanian" question I posed above: all leagues are not equal. I really was serious above in saying that perhaps we just need to abandon universal guidelines here, because it may be the cricket equivalent of the Schleswig-Holstein question, and we need to perhaps just settle first of all for guidelines in those cricketing nations where a sensible line can be drawn. My line would be at ECB League level, and in Ireland would take in Division One team from the Irish regional leagues, but not support the second division teams unless they proved notability some other way. User:Mooretwin is being very gentle and reasoned with us here and I'd like to help him without sacrificing all credibility: but imagine an Albanian User:Mooretwin and how that debate might go if we don't get this right. Johnlp (talk) 23:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
I agree that club cricket in England is highly organised, but would say that the same could be said for Aussie cricket, but the level of coverage that can be found for them compared to Irish cricket gives me concerns that saying the teams playing at the top level of club cricket meet the WP:GNG when the evidence does not come close to supporting that fact, one of the leagues does not even have it's own article.
One of the three leagues that have articles :
So if I am going to be convinced that the top tier of club cricket in Ireland is to be deemed automatically notable I would like to see more sources on it. Mtking (talk) 02:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Based on that reasoning, how many of the existing articles on English and Welsh clubs would make the cut? And do you believe that the project benefits from culling these articles? Just a question... I can understand how "rubbish" articles add nothing, but I can't help but believe that the cutoff we're looking for is to be found somewhere between what you're suggesting and what I'm suggesting. --HighKing (talk) 12:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
The issue is not any cull that would result, if the teams are not notable they are not notable and no changes to the guideline are going to make them notable. Ravenswing made the point below that the guidelines are "presumptive only, in so far as it's judged that a subject which meets one or more of the criteria would probably meet the GNG", now I have spent some time looking for sources to support yours and Mooretwin's claim that Irish teams are notable and documented it above, and have come up empty handed, this has been going on for 10 days now and no sources have been forthcoming by either you or Mooretwin to support your position that they are. So unless you have anything, I think it is time to move this on. I have a small change that I am going to propose to the draft above that might be a little more acceptable but I do need to check to see if it is within existing WP policy. Mtking (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose: Much for the reasons stated above, as the amendment seems to give notability to clubs which just aren't notable, purely based on them playing in the top level domestic league. My cricket club, which is about as non-notable as they come could defeat many of the teams which would become notable - I'm sure there's many players at Luckstars Cricket Club (Seychelles) who couldn't face my humble googly! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:11, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
Oppose the amendment: I have had a long think about this and remain of the opinion that it potentially would cause the project to ride roughshod over general community guidelines. Still thinking about MTKing's original proposal, sorry. - Sitush (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion for avoid HighKing's cull concern.

I was looking for some precedent for this idea, but cant find one so not sure we can put it in the guideline but it may represent a good practice to follow :

For all articles on cricket team created before 8 June 2011 (when this tread was started) that meet all of :

  • Play in the top tier or division of club cricket in their country (or area where a country is split up into areas) ;
  • That an article exits for the league they play in and
  • Who do not meet the club team notability guideline

Rather than nominating for deletion it shall be the preferred option of the project to :

  1. redirected the article to league the team play in
  2. that a note should be left on WT:CRIC informing others of the redirection.

This would have the following advantages :

  • If another member of the project has sources for the team in question then these can be added bringing the article up to meet the guideline.
  • If other sources come to light later it is easy to return the redirect to a full article and add the new source detail.
  • It would allow HighKing and Mooretwin as well as any other editor as much time as they need to find sources for the top-tier Irish teams and be abe to get access at the article history while they do.

Just so I am clear I do not see this proposal :

  1. As a licence to create new redirect articles for top tier teams that did not exist on 8 June 2011.
  2. Only covering, in the case of Irish League's, Leinster Senior League Division 1, NCU Senior League Premier League and North West Senior League 1. For all other tiers, club articles should be treated the same as any other article with notability issues however redirection to the League's page should only be used in exceptional cases when the team name is highly likely to be a valid search term.
  3. Not to be used in the case of Phoenix Cricket Club unless no source for the claim to being the oldest cricket club in Ireland is not forthcoming in a reasonable time frame, say not before 19 September being three months from now.
  4. Not to be used for Instonians as it is also a Rugby club.

Comments please Mtking (talk) 04:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I simply don't understand all of your suggestion. And it certainly doesn't make sense to create a date watershed.
The reason for the date cut off, is that it does not appear to be in policy to create redirects for non-notable organisations so to avoid putting this group at odds with that to make it clear it only applies to converting exiting articles. Mtking (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
But I'm leaning towards what I think your suggestion is - an article along the lines of the Bradford Cricket League which lists the clubs?
Yes that is what I am getting at, with redirects for club articles that are pre-exiting. Mtking (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Question regarding my concerns on a "cull" of already existing articles. Based on your GNG requirements, would this mean we'd have to delete articles such as Ashton Cricket Club and Bury Cricket Club, seeing as they've no references and also fail GNG? --HighKing (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Both articles fail WP:GNG and with just a quick look I can't find any sources that cover them in detail so yes they will need to be addressed (I have tagged them) Mtking (talk) 01:39, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Why are you so keen to delete so many cricket articles? Why do you want to reduce the scope of the encyclopaedia? Mooretwin (talk) 10:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not keen to do anything, but every encyclopaedia has agreed upon "entry" criteria, WP's is in WP:N and if topics don't meet them they should not be listed. WP is not an extension or replacement for clubs own website or history book. Mtking (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
You appear very keen, based on the evidence of your actions, to delete lots of Irish cricket articles. And don't pretend you are merely a neutral third party trying to implement guidelines - you're actually on this page trying to change the guidelines so as to justify your deletion campaign! Mooretwin (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Not true. This entire issue started on the AfD for Burndennett. AssociateAffiliate suggested that clarification be sought here since there was a discussion about whether you were correct to transpose the English guidelines to Irish cricket. You and someone else on the "yes, it is ok" camp were given some time to start that suggested discussion here. You did not, so I did. In other words, the discussion here results from the intervention of a third party who did not !vote for or against the Burndennett deletion and who made a perfectly valid suggestion. One can only speculate as to why you did not take up the suggestion yourself but, hey, here we are now. - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Sorry? Mtking is involved in a deletion campaign in relation to Irish cricket articles. He is also involved in trying to get the guidelines changed so as to support that campaign! He's not simply trying to implement guidelines, he's trying to change them! Mooretwin (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
No. Several people right at the outset of this discussion agreed that the current guidelines could not be transposed to cover Burndennett etc. Hence the need for change. This started because you believed that those guidelines could be transposed. It has nothing much to do with Irish clubs. As numerous other people have pointed out, the issues extend well beyond those. If you want to keep bringing up Irish clubs then that is fine, but the debate has gone much further. I am wondering if there may be an issue of ownership here. Both MTKing and myself have now tagged some non-Irish clubs. There is no point nominating them for AfD until we have a settled guideline in place, but our actions do clearly indicate that unreferenced or poorly referenced articles need fixing by one means or another. And fixed they will be, either by amending the guideline to include or exclude them, or by applying GNG. - Sitush (talk) 16:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Hmmmm - what "several people" are you referring to? In fact, I can't find any outside of you and Mtking who said the guidelines couldn't be transposed. Have I missed something - so sorry if I have, could you point out where this discussion is? Because my concern is that the *exact* same guidelines that were already in use, and agreed, for English clubs were somehow taken to be for English clubs only, and the Irish clubs were all being put to AfD. Now you've tagged some other articles on English clubs??? Is that wise if we're still in the middle of discussions? --HighKing (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I asked the question regarding inherent notability at 00:47 on 8 June, the first message in this long discussion. Later that day, four people appeared to express doubts about whether they could be transposed:
  • JH - "unlikely", 09:01
  • Sarastro1 - "particularly so in Ireland", 09:32
  • Johnip - "maybe the guideline needs revisiting", 12:11
  • AssociateAffiliate - agrees with John, 14:52
Most of them have made subsequent comments in the thread which also infer that the guidelines as they stood when I posted could not be transposed. Then there is MTKing and myself. And if you dig around the current AfDs I think that you may find some others, plus some who have insisted GNG has to apply in these situations, regardless of any guideline.
As for tagging, well, why not? They are not tagged for deletion for reasons that I have already made clear in comments to which you have made a response. However, tagging for notability and references (especially when there are no references at all) is a valid action & gives notice that some work is required. Inherent notability or otherwise, some sort of references have to exist because this is, after all, an encyclopedia. It was for this reason that over 800 Indian village articles were recently mass deleted as part of a discussion at WP:ANI. Populated places, as you are probably aware, are inherently notable. - Sitush (talk) 19:49, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
OK, found the discussion above, thanks. --HighKing (talk) 00:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Progressing

The original thrust of this discussion concerned the deletion of articles relating to Irish cricket clubs. We've come a long way since then, and editors here have expressed their concerns that smaller cricket clubs, would most likely struggle to meet GNG requirements. For countries where Cricket isn't regarded as a major sport, those clubs playing even at the highest levels may struggle to meet GNG requirements. Is that a fair summary?
The suggestion to date involves creating articles for leagues (where none exists), and deleting the articles on clubs that don't meet basic notability requirements, redirecting them to the league article - and if a club is notable in its own right, the article will continue to exist.
Using that criteria, this will result in the deletion of most if not all of the following articles from English cricket:

I'd say there's a case to be made to clean up the English cricket articles first, so as to ensure that there's no accusations of editors making special rules for some countries and not applying them fairly across all countries. Once this is done, it should be very straight-forward to apply the same rules regardless of country, etc. --HighKing (talk) 13:21, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to restate my 'opposition to this suggestion, which effectively amounts to removing the guidelines on club notability altogether - since a club wouldn't have an article unless it met the generic notability guidelines. I thought HighKing was opposed to this extreme move. Let's have an inclusive approach, please! Mooretwin (talk) 14:37, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
@Highking - yes, if the clubs you list fail the guidelines then they need to be addressed. However, they should be addressed at the same time as articles for clubs in other countries. Otherwise, your point fails because, in fact, we would be targeting English clubs rather than, say, Irish clubs (England is a country, too!). Some of the clubs you list (Stand, Unsworth) are within walking distance of me and have employed pros etc (Clive or David Lloyd may have played for Stand, IIRC) but I have no idea if the clubs pass the guidelines. I suspect that Stand might (just) but, as I've said before, I am not really a fan of the game and do not have the background knowledge. My point is: your list targets existing English club articles and this is just as dodgy as targeting solely Irish club articles. - Sitush (talk) 14:58, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe the current proposal is far too draconian - which is why I highlighted the (long) list of English cricket articles that would also probably not meet GNG. I think it might be easier for editors to understand the impact of their current proposals in light of current English cricket articles, and hopefully then understand that its not two Irish guys digging their heels in over Irish articles, but that we were simply applying existing guidelines to articles on Irish cricket. @Sitush, I picked the list of English clubs on purpose as a way of showing how targetting of Irish articles, and the accusations made against Mooretwin and myself, were unfounded as we were simply applying existing guidelines to articles. I also believe that if other editors realize the impact of your proposals on all these other articles, they'll comment and hopefully we can move towards a more inclusive approach rather than the current approach being proposed. --HighKing (talk) 15:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I have not looked into each of the above, but if they do fail as you say they do then is that not a reason to adopt my redirect proposal above ? Mtking (talk) 20:22, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Why are you so keen to delete cricket articles? Mooretwin (talk) 22:00, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Why are you so keen to keep stuff that does not meet WP:GNG or WP:V ? Mtking (talk) 22:10, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I favour an inclusive encyclopaedia that provides comprehensive information. Project guidelines routinely go beyond those two generic guidelines. Mooretwin (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
I favour a well researched encyclopaedia that covers notable topics, that readers can trust. You are wrong that "Project guidelines routinely go beyond those two generic guidelines", firstly WP:V is policy and also the WP:LOCALCONSENSUS policy clearly states that guidelines can not override the community agreed WP:GNG. Mtking (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Spot on, MTKing. This whole issue appears to have dragged on mostly because of WP:OWN. I do understand why, but it does not make it right. I have reached close to the end of my tether here, so please forgive a slight rant. There are two professed Irish contributors here who seem to be trying to do what can be done to save Irish articles. Good on them for trying to stand their ground. I would probably do the same if I was "involved", but I do not edit articles where I might have any involvement - a self-imposed discipline.
What those two contributors appear sometimes to be missing is that this debate goes well beyond Ireland, that at least you & me are prepared to see it applied equally to non-Irish cricket clubs. I stress "sometimes" because there is an appearance (forgive me) that when it suits then the non-Irish situation is cited. It is not about Ireland and it is not even, specifically, about cricket. It is about the general project and an attempt to improve the cricket project's guidelines in a way that both brings them into line with the wider community consensus and enables a global scope rather than a (primarily) England/Wales scope. It all arose as a consequence of a fallacious argument used in one or two AfDs that just happened to be for Irish cricket clubs. They could equally well have been clubs in Namibia (drawn out of a hat: I was chatting in a shop with someone from Namibia a few hours ago).
In the interval, some of the AfDs have closed and, as far as I am aware, all have resulted in deletions. Even though this debate continues and is referred to in those AfDs, the articles are being deleted. Is this not telling people something? The guidelines have been misrepresented, I have been misrepresented, you have probably been misrepresented and the early content to this discussion seems to have possibly been misrepresented. It is becoming too much, even though I do accept both that Mooretwin & HighKing are acting in good faith and are doing probably exactly what I would do if I had an involvement in the subject matter. Sorry for this rant, but I am becoming a little fed up. I am aware that it may cause offence but I have been thinking about it a lot over the last couple of days and cannot for the life of me think of another way to put it. So, my apologies in advance. I have complete respect for both Mooretwin and HighKing for their many contributions to Wikipedia; we just differ in how we see this particular issue. - Sitush (talk) 00:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There are two professed English contributors here who seem to be trying to do what can be done to delete Irish articles. They are now also trying to delete English articles.
What is this "fallacious argument" that was "used in one or two AfDs"?
The guidelines haven't been misrepresented, except by those seeking to cull articles. Mooretwin (talk) 08:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I am sorry my first language my be English, but what make you think I am English ? The guideline is not fit for the purpose that it was written for, it does not show which teams are likely to pass WP:GNG you know that, I know that. Your desire to keep it is based on the false belief that passing the guideline magically confirms notability on the team, it does not. Mtking (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Mooretwin, the fallacious argument was that the guidelines as at 8 June could be transposed to Irish cricket. It was used on several AfDs:
So far, all but the first in this list have been deleted. The closing admin's comment for Dungannon explains the situation well, including with regard to your other fallacious argument about your imagined situation of club cricket articles being deleted/recreated/deleted etc as they move up and down the leagues.
Since we seem to be hitting a stalement here, I am sorely tempted just to do as a couple of admins suggested a few weeks ago. They said that if any of these lower league clubs failed to survive AfD then just PROD the rest of the clubs playing at that level. Basically, there is now a community precedent despite and regardless of this ongoing discussion. The closing admins appear not to be waiting for this discussion to resolve itself. Obviously, if there are any indications that individual clubs at those levels do in fact meet GNG as individual clubs then they would not be PRODed. - Sitush (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
You've got the wrong end of the stick there. The fallacy was the argument that the guidelines couldn't apply to Irish cricket because Irish clubs weren't notable. Yet the English clubs covered by the guideline were no more or less notable than the Irish clubs under threat from the deletion campaign. There's no fallacy in arguing that senior Irish clubs are equivalent to ECB league teams. Mooretwin (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I give up. You simply are not getting it. I am going to put together a mass deletion proposal later on the grounds of failure to meet WP:GNG, unless someone steps in with a good argument to do otherwise. Feel free to add other cricket club articles to the list of those given by HighKing, whether English or otherwise. - Sitush (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I have now nominated as a group at Afd three of the remaining clubs playing at the level of Donaghadee, Dungannon and Clogher, articles for which have already been deleted. Hopefully this one, at least, is relatively uncontroversial because of the precedent. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ards_Cricket_Club. My apologies if the formatting of the AfD is wrong - not done many AfDs and this is the first time I've done a group one. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Congratulations. You're great. Mooretwin (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Lets wrap this up

We have reached an impasse here the discussion has moved on to motives and away from sources, guidelines and policies and that is not good. What I think is clear, is that at one point or another almost ever editor has expressed the view that the current guideline does not work and that it is not possible to say that a club team playing in any top league in any country can be assumed to pass WP:GNG, both Mooretwin & HighKing have directly questioned it in relation to English teams and Sitush and I both tagged articles on English teams that show no signs of passing WP:GNG and if it is not going to work in England the home of cricket it is not going to work in Australia, New Zealand, India or Ireland.

Johnlp makes the point above that he did not "think you can have a global blanket rule here because the quality of cricket is going to vary widely and the impact of the top cricket clubs in terms of their overall importance to national and international sport in the individual countries won't be the same.". So to avoid this going on forever I am proposing that we just remove everything on club cricket from "It is necessary to take an individual.." upto the end of the list.

That leaves up what to do with existing articles that do not meet WP:GNG, I still think my redirect proposal is the best way forward, but I would like others to make alternative and sensible suggestions.Mtking (talk) 00:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

At no point have I ever said that "a club team playing in any top league in any country can be assumed to pass GNG". My comments have related only to Irish cricket. I accept that Albanian cricket is not notable and have no desire or interest in promoting articles about Albanian cricket teams, if any even exist. I no more want to see articles about English cricket deleted than I do articles about Irish cricket. I strongly oppose the proposal to remove the guideline about clubs. There is no consensus here to change the guidelines at all, so let them sit as they were. Mooretwin (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
There is also no consensus for them to stay as they are. Mtking (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
You need consensus to change them, otherwise they stay as they are. Sorry. Four editors isn't exactly a groundswell. Mooretwin (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Actually, the current guidelines were updated to aprox what they are now in October 2008 here - but the archive of the time Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket/Archive 51 does not show a discussion, so looks like they were changed without discussion. Mtking (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, if there was no discussion, the assumption is that there was no objection. That can't be said on this occasion, I'm afraid. Mooretwin (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Er... No discussion = No consensus, there is no time limit on objection. Mtking (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said above, the guideline is not fit for the purpose that it was written for, it does not show which teams are likely to pass WP:GNG you know that, I know that. Your desire to keep it is based on the false belief that passing the guideline magically confirms notability on the team, it does not. Mtking (talk) 08:42, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
That's merely your opinion. Mooretwin (talk) 14:03, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
It is not merely Mtking's opinion, though,is it? There are several other people saying the same thing and the recent AfDs are supporting that. - Sitush (talk) 14:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Sitush, this is showing all the signs of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, I will ask you the same question that I have asked Johnlp and Andrew nixon below can you be clear here, what do you both think the guildlines on club teams should say ? Should they stay as they are ? Should it be clarified that they only apply to English and Australian club teams? should all mention of club teams be removed ? or do you favour another form of words should be used.. Mtking (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
If that's directed at me, I've already said that the guideline for England and Wales should remain as it is, and expanded for Ireland to include clubs playing senior cricket. Mooretwin (talk) 22:39, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes it was, because you have been asked time and time again to prove your assertion with sources your have not done that. Mtking (talk) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
As said previously, I am not particularly knowledgeable about cricket. Your original proposal pretty much meant that, as one of the objectors to it said, there will not be a project guideline for clubs. We would just stick with the wider community WP:GNG guidelines. GNG does it for me and a lot of the keystrokes over the last couple of weeks could have been avoided if certain people had spent some time actually trying to prove GNG for certain articles, especially since there have been claims that the subjects of those articles would meet it. I am content with the "club-by-club" GNG idea mentioned by Andrew nixon. The onus should be on people to prove that something is notable, not the reverse. Otherwise we would have even more daft articles about one-legged, blind Inuit hip-hop artists etc than we already have. - Sitush (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Whose original proposal? What original proposal? Mooretwin (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Oh, geez. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket#Proposal. - Sitush (talk) 23:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

My two cents

After having a think about this, and discussing it with a couple of people involved in Irish cricket (including a former Irish international) I am of the opinion that the top level of Irish domestic cricket, and one which can make the biggest claim to notability, would be the currently "on hold" inter-provincial tournament. It hasn't been played since 2003, and was going to return this year before rain washed out the first game. The scorecards for the event are mostly (more than 90%) available on CricketArchive, and I'm told it gained much coverage in the Irish press (both North and South) when played. Just my two cents. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Andrew, in your view (and as our expert on international cricket), where does that leave the top division Irish league clubs: on a par with ECB league clubs or Australian grade cricket clubs, or lower? Johnlp (talk) 15:45, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
In the absence of direct competition, it's hard to say. The top of the tree clubs in the top divisions probably are on a par with the ECB league clubs though - I'd bet the LCU league has more players in county cricket than most ECB leagues. I think the best solution would be to operate on a case by case basis, with notability being based on reliable sources. It should be pointed out that whilst we at CricketEurope do host the official Cricket Ireland site, the vast majority of our coverage of the Irish leagues is completely independent of Cricket Ireland (the by lines should make this clear) as we have content sharing deals with several local and national newspapers throughout Ireland. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:48, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Johnlp and Andrew nixon can we be clear here, what do you both think the guildlines on club teams should say ? Should they stay as they are ? Should it be clarified that they only apply to English and Australian club teams? should all mention of club teams be removed ? or do you favour another form of words should be used. ? Mtking (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Personally, I'd remove club teams all together. First-class teams are much more easily defined as notable, but club teams aren't. There is also the transitory nature of club cricket to consider - a team in the top division may not be so the following year. Are they considered notable for this season but not the next? Does any team that has ever been in the top division count as notable? I think not. First-class/List A cricket seems a reasonable cut off point, with clubs at a lower level being included if they meet the GNG. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:15, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I've stayed out of this until now, but given things seem to be drawing to a close, and may even be getting more civilised, I'll pop in with my own thoughts: I've long thought that far too many club sides have "notability" according to our guidelines, and although the standard of cricket at that level is undoubtably on a par with a level of football that would be notable, the sad truth is that football gets much greater coverage to a much lower level, so comparisons with it are pretty meaningless. As Andrew says above, I think realistically all club teams will have to be taken on a case by case basis directly from the GNG. I think we should try and identify all of the clubs that currently have articles, and have a grace period of say two months, in which sources can be found for those that should stay. At the end of that two months, a series of PRODs and AfDs can be implemented. Some clubs like Hambledon Club and Lansdown Cricket Club will have no issues, as these meet the GNG, but other more dubious cases, like some of those above will have to prove themselves. I imagine a good deal of grade cricket would be notable enough to survive, though I don't know how good the online coverage is, and we seem to be losing Australian editors! Anyway: that's my view. Harrias talk 21:32, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I’m an inclusionist by instinct and I don’t actually think this is a massive issue. Of 250 or so clubs in the ECB premier leagues, there are only 50 or so with articles, and I suspect quite a few of those can be justified by past successes, famous players or general historic importance, though the articles are often not good at asserting these virtues. (In addition, all Lancashire League and Central Lancashire League clubs have articles, but these are arguably better covered and are longer-standing leagues and clubs anyway: coverage in Wisden for 50+ years at least, for instance.)
It seems to me that the problem with the cricket club articles has always been not where we draw the line, but that most of the articles that are written are done by local enthusiasts rather than by people with a broader view of the merits and standards of individual clubs. We aren’t going to be able to stop that from continuing no matter what is done, because policing this is nigh impossible. (In parenthesis, I also dispute that football is “different” or better covered, and I don’t see the Football project agonising over the merits of Screwfix League Division Two clubs the way we’ve debated senior cricket clubs here – and coverage of US sports is even more arcane in most areas: we’re really pretty clean and clear in cricket.)
That said, WP:CLUB seems to me to have at least some of the answer: “Where coverage is only local in scope, consider adding a section on the organization to an article on the organization’s local area instead.” If, where Foo Cricket Club seems likely to fail GNG (or WP:CLUB), information we have on it is put into a “Sports in Foo” section of the article on Foo, with the Foo Cricket Club article redirecting to that section, then that seems to me a reasonable compromise. The enthusiast who originally created the Foo Cricket Club article doesn’t feel entirely cheated by having their work canned, but standards have been maintained.
Before going ahead and doing this to English and Welsh (and Irish) clubs that already have articles, however, I’d like to hear from Australian contributors: grade cricket there has similar proportions of clubs with and without articles as the ECB structure. Are they happy that those articles might also disappear or be reallocated? This affects them too. Johnlp (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Well that's me, I don't see this as removing notability from any club, if they failed either WP:CLUB or WP:GNG before then they still do without this change. I agree with the re-direct approach (would recommend the league page rather than the town but don't mind either) for teams that are at the top of the league structure. Mtking (talk) 00:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
For example Queensland Cricket would seem a good example, we are better off having 5 good quality articles on the leagues, that are well sourced and kept updated than 50 stubs that are little more than place holders. Mtking (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree with Andrew nixon and Harrias - too many club teams, of which their notability is more difficult to establish. Obviously keep those which are obviously notable and those which are less so but well sourced. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:25, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
From an Australian POV, notable grade cricket clubs would be the exception, not the standard(ie need WP:GNG type sig coverage) - see Category:Australian club cricket teams - NSW & WA seem very sparse, Tassie & Vic more complete. In the lower levels of Aussie rules the problem isn't permastubs but overly detailed barely reffed/primary sourced copies of club honour boards/results.The-Pope (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we have a consensus to remove the section on club cricket from the notability guide and to redirect top level club sides that do not meet WP:GNG and/or WP:CLUB to the league (or town) in preference to delete, thus preserving the history in case sources come along later. If so would someone like to do the honours? Mtking (talk) 10:06, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
"I think we have a consensus" - one person suggesting something and one person agreeing isn't a consensus. Mooretwin (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Think you may need to re-count : Andrew nixon, Harrias, Johnlp, AssociateAffiliate, The-Pope, Sitush, Me and since then AustralianRupert. Mtking (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Mooretwin - you're obviously very passionate about this subject. Why not direct that passion into improving the articles on Irish clubs so that they don't need to be deleted? I'm sure that none of us here would wish to see a well referenced article on any club disappear, no matter how low down the pecking order of world cricket that club might be. When I first joined Wikipedia, I directed my passion for non-test cricket into improving/creating articles for every associate and affiliate member of the ICC, making sure that the articles were as well referenced as they could be. Why not do that for Irish clubs? It will be a big project, but a very worthwhile one. Sitting around debating whether such and such a club is notable achieves nothing - make the articles good enough to stay without any specific guidelines, and all of us here would happily stand and defend them when someone tries to delete them. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not around much at the moment: may be more so by the weekend. A way to go could be to create a list of those existing articles "under threat" in the To Do section at the top of this page, and anything that's in there for a period (a month? a week?) without being improved, relocated or justified goes to AfD. I'm happy to do some relocations when I have a bit more time. But probably not this week. Johnlp (talk) 10:44, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The ToDo page is as good as place as any to list, I am happy with giving any without a suitable redirect a month at least. I do feel that for any articles that are redirected, a short note placed here just letting everyone know might be a good idea, it might jog a memory about a source or help spot an area that we have not considered. Mtking (talk) 11:55, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
In regards to The Pope's comment on Australian grade cricket clubs, I agree. I think that only a few of them would have enough coverage to meet the GNG. IMO, the redirect option for those articles that can't satisfy the requirement in this regard would probably be the best option, and I would support it in regards to Australian clubs. I can't speak for clubs in other countries, though. AustralianRupert (talk) 11:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Disagree about Australian grade cricket - a historical view needs to be taken. All (with the possible exception of Tassie) would have sufficient historical coverage to ensure notability. Most would have a published club history and all would have reams of content on Trove not to mention what could be found if someone actually visits a library. The current paucity of mass media coverage of grade cricket is not the historical norm. Even 20 years ago, Melbourne grade cricket was covered in significant detail in most metropolitan dailies. Also, the basic point still stands - Shane Warne registered club cricket side throughout his entire international career was St Kilda Cricket Club and so on for all Australian cricketers. All teams higher than grade cricket in Australia are representative selections. Strongly opposed to any change to WP:CRIN for Australian clubs. -- Mattinbgn (talk)
I don't see an issue, remember that all we are talking about is meeting WP:GNG and/or WP:CLUB and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS can not override that requirement anyway. Also any that don't or sources can't be easily found would be redirected to the league anyway and can be easily restored later. Mtking (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
(ec)You are missing the whole point of notability guidelines. They are not meant as replacements for GNG, i.e. there isn't at least reliable, independent sources in existence for this topic but we will deem it notable anyway. The notability guidelines are assumptions that there are in fact sufficient sources available for articles on these topics and thus saves us all the effort of wading through individual AfDs where the end result is not in doubt. In the case of Australian grade cricket, the assumption of sufficient sources is a valid one and thus the local guideline is both appropriate and useful. I am also opposed to any amalgamation of the Australian grade cricket articles into unwieldy mega-articles. Finally, why has a discussion about the notability of cricket clubs in a country where it has always been a minor sport been allowed to set the baseline for notability of cricket clubs in a country where it was once the largest mass participation sport and still is widely recognised as the national sport. While this discussion was about Ireland I could largely ignore it as I know nothing about Irish cricket but it seems to have morphed into a monster ... I think we have all had a bit of a rush of blood here and are trying to fix things that simply are not broken. This whole discussion would be better off sticking to places where the basic cricket heirarchy has not been in place for 130+ years. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Let's flip this: It is a fair assumption to make that it is unlikely that many, if any, hurling clubs in Australia are likely to be notable. It would be unreasonable to extend this to say that it is unreasonable to assume that a class of hurling clubs in Ireland may be notable. So why in God's name is the entirely reasonable assumption that Irish cricket clubs may find it difficult to demonstrate notability being extended to Australian clubs where the sport has a extensively documented and detailed history. This discussion has gone mad! -- Mattinbgn (talk) 12:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
In response to Mattinbgn: That's certainly a fair call. Apologies, I hadn't considered that. I was only thinking about the current situation. Nevertheless, I still think that the articles (if they exist) need to demonstrate their notability against the GNG (i.e. through sourcing to reliable sources). I'd have no dramas with an article about a grade/league/pub/whatever club if it has "significant coverage", but if they can't be sourced, then I think redirecting would make the most sense (because it preserves the history and therefore enables someone to recreate later if/when sources are found). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Chiming in to say I largely agree with Mattinbgn. Can't speak for the other Australian states, but I'm quite sure that at least the majority of Victorian Premier Cricket clubs would meet GNG. To take a more obvious example, see Melbourne Cricket Club. The article's in a horrible state, yet it would easily pass GNG. Jenks24 (talk) 12:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I said much the same thing on Mooretwin's talk page earlier today with regard to the already-deleted articles. They can be recreated if the sources s/he claims exist are found. Until they are found then they are, I am afraid, sub-GNG standard. My note was deleted without response.
The redirect proposal has much the same effect: come up with the sources and the article is back from the dead. - Sitush (talk) 12:36, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Response to Mattinbgn, who says "This whole discussion would be better off sticking to places where the basic cricket heirarchy has not been in place for 130+ years". For information, the Irish cricket hierarchy has been in place for longer than that. In fact, I think after England, Ireland was the second country in the world where first-class cricket was played (from the 1850s), with the first union (the Northern Union) founded in 1884. Cricket in Ireland is not the equivalent of hurling in Australia. Mooretwin (talk) 13:50, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
I admit that in my lifetime, grade cricket is solely a friends and family affair, but if the long-established clubs have good sources, then I'm OK with that. But I agree absolutely entirely with Mattinbgn that the whole point of topic specific notability requirements is that the WP:GNG is ASSUMED for articles that meet a certain agreed level. Therefore for a level of cricket to be included in a topic specific notability guideline, you'll need to show that for at least a few examples that sufficient significant sources do exist. Has that been done? The-Pope (talk) 14:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
The issue with the current assumptions is that it leads to multiple stubs rather than good quality articles on club cricket, this is the case with Irish cricket, also in Australia, take for example Tasmanian Grade Cricket and it 20 Teams, across the 21 articles there is not a single reference to an independent sources. Victorian Premier Cricket is a little better but 9 out of the 14 team articles is likewise devoid of references to independent sources. One of them, Melbourne Cricket Club is what most people think of as one of the two most significant clubs in the game. I think the guide that says Grade Cricket teams are notable is the cause of this, it discourages the creation of sourced articles in favour of a numbers game. I am willing to accept that Grade Cricket teams are likely to have received coverage but I am with the others above in concluding that it is not possible to say that all Grade Cricket teams are notable, because alot of the coverage will be of a routine reports on results. I repeat that I am not advocating a cull of these articles, just a review of them and redirection to the relevant league where independent sources are not available. Mtking (talk) 00:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Again, you are missing the point and the references to ROUTINE are irrelevant. The sources exist and it is easy to prove they exist. It took me all of 5 minutes to find multiple reliable sources available for one of the currently unsourced articles. The available sources are relevant and encyclopedic and more than just routine. I reject utterly the idea that in order to prevent the articles being deleted/merged I must rewrite and fully source them on the spot. It can be done but avoiding that sort of nonsense is the whole point of notability guidelines. The current articles on grade cricket are poorly sourced but that does not reflect a lack of sources but a lack of use of existing sources and a lack of interest from current editors. This whole push smacks of WP:RECENTism and appears to be based on the idea that unless sources can be found on Google, they don't exist. This is a huge assumption.
This project appears to be sleepwalking towards a notability guideline that is willing to assume that Cole (Hampshire cricketer) (for example) is inherently notable and worthy of a stand-alone article but is unwilling to extend the same assumption to cricket clubs like South Melbourne Cricket Club - the home club of five nine Australian Test captains and eight Wisden Cricketers of the Year. They didn't play for SMCC before they were famous cricketers and captains, they played for SMCC while they were famous international cricketers. Graham Yallop famously injured himself playing for SMCC before an Ashes Test match where he was supposed to captain Australia. This proposal is an improvement?? And this modest proposal to gut the coverage of the leading clubs (remember, this is the top level of club cricket in Australia, state teams are representative selections) in Australia's national sport comes from a discussion about club cricket in Ireland?? Babies and bathwater come to mind. I strongly oppose the merging of Australian grade cricket articles with the possible exception of Tassie as stated earlier. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 00:56, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
You make some very valid points, with regard to Victorian Premier Cricket I am persuaded by them and by a number of sources that seem to detail the activities and teams, I think the same could be said for Sydney Grade Cricket but not so sure about the other states, I am wary of count of test captains being a measure of anything as we all know notability is not inherited and as such notable players playing for a team or league does not make that team or league notable. Mtking (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
It is no different in Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide!! Valleys in Brisbane is just as notable and just as proud a club as St Kilda and South Melbourne. Tassie is different due to the different history of club cricket there. There seems to be a clear lack of understanding about Australian cricket is structured and clearly a lack of understanding of the history of Australian cricket. How has someone who has never shown any interest in the activities of this project before abrogated to himself the right to dictate what this project's notability guideline should be? Further, what is the problem he is trying to fix? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Proposal #2

Clubs and teams

Articles on Clubs or Teams that do not meet the above standard, but play in the top tier of club cricket in their state or country, should redirect to the article on the league they compete in or an article (or section of an article) coving sport in that location.

Venues

  • A venue that has staged a major cricket match.
  • A venue that its regular usage by a notable club ensures its own notability per se. Beyond a purely cricketing outlook, a venue is a recognised named site with a fixed geographic location and established community associations of a permanent nature.

Mtking (talk) 05:12, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Remove the reference to Australian clubs and that's fine. Andrew nixon (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
either way is fine by me as I feel that both sure that teams will have no issue passing the third point. Mtking (talk) 06:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm with Andrew: once you start singling out one or other batch of clubs, it won't end and you're pretty close to being back where you started. I also prefer having a redirect back to a place (or a "Sports in Foo" section of the article on Foo) as an option: the league articles are prey to recentism (lists of current members, for instance) so you continue to have the problem of what to do with teams that get relegated. It's also a way of "parking" information created in good faith that is contained in articles that do not currently make the grade, but might do so in future. Johnlp (talk) 08:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
As I said I don't mind either way, the important part is that we get consensus on some form of words. I have amended it Mtking (talk) 08:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment It occurs to me that we don't need a guideline for clubs since we're relying on WP:N anyway. But it's been good to have this discussion and I support these clear and precise guidelines. --HighKing (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not convinced about the last point about venues being notable if the club is notable. I don't see that a venue should automatically gain notability just because the club is notable. I would suggest that notable clubs should just have a section on the venue, unless the venue is notable in its own right (which is probably only going to be due to it having staged a major cricket match. Harrias talk 11:44, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
That is just brought from the current version with the wording cleared up, agree that could come out. Mtking (talk) 12:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose' to the revised wording instigated and supported by people with quite obviously no understanding or interest in the history and structure of Australian cricket. Again, how did this project get to stage where obscure cricketers from the 18th century of whom we don't even know their names are deemed notable despite the paucity of sources but clubs with over 100 years of history and the backbone of cricket in this country are not given the same benefit of the doubt? This is madness. I will oppose any attempt to form monstrous merged articles for Australian grade cricket. If you want them gone, take them to AfD. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 22:43, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
I believe your fears are unfounded, firstly can you show that any of the Victorian Premier Cricket would not meet the (now) point 2, given your defence, secondly if the personal guidelines are not right then lets fix them and don't use it as a reason not to fix the club ones. Mtking (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
Also believe any fears are unfounded. As people have been saying with regards to Irish clubs, if these Australian clubs are so obviously notable, then there should be no problem finding enough sources to show that. Any I agree with you on the players - I've often said that this projects attitude towards no name 18th/early 19th century players who played for teams like "Lord Snooty's XI" or "Players with surnames beginning with B" (one of those is a real team!) is rather silly and needs an overhaul, but we're not talking about players, we're talking about clubs. One thing at a time! Andrew nixon (talk) 05:23, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support, as amended at the time of this message. It seems to be reasonable. I have for a long time accepted that the guidelines refer to verifiable rather than verified but this is intended to be an encyclopedia and given that it is most frequently edited by people who are not peer reviewed in the academic sense of the term I feel that it is down to us to ensure that readers do not need to jump through hoops to ascertain issues such as notability. Such issues should not be difficult to prove and, therefore, should be proven. I have written a couple of articles on "obscure" 18th century English prizefighters which people have thought ok for GA status. I intend to continue my coverage of that subject despite no particular interest in any sport. If I can do that then, surely, it is possible for the much more documented subject area that is cricket? It really does not take a lot to meet GNG etc and there appear to be plenty of people involved in this particular subject area who could assist in achieving this. If there are 18th century cricketer articles knocking about that fail the basic tests then perhaps they, too, should be subject to scrutiny. That is the WP:OSE argument, and "deja vu all over again". - Sitush (talk) 23:21, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I support the proposal although I have one final comment. In some countries (e.g. Ireland) cricket has a long history and devoted following, but remains a "minority" sport. Coverage of a club in national press, in these instances, may be difficult if not impossible to obtain, although there would likely be adequate coverage at a local level. Local level coverage for amateur and minority sports (in my opinion) may be enough in some circumstances to denote notability. Just my 2c. --HighKing (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Agree. It is important that common scene approach be taken and that local or regional coverage is acceptable, with the provisos that it relates to the cricket activities of the club and is not just routine results coverage. Mtking (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Bah, the ignorance on show about the organisation and history of Australian cricket is breathtaking and the bracketing of Australian grade cricket with Irish club cricket is just plain insulting. If there is one period I would love to travel through time to and watch cricket, it would be Sydney in the early 1930s. On any given summer weekend, I would be able to see cricketers like Bradman, Jackson, Kippax, O'Reilly, Fingleton et al. NSW played only six Shield games a season so this is where they played most of their cricket, especially if there was not a MCC team visiting. However according to this WikiProject, ostensibly dedicated to cricket worldwide, this competition has no more standing than club cricket in Ireland and less than a minor county match in the Pro40 league! If my definition of notable teams led to 50+ teams in England deemed "notable" and only 6 in Australia, I would suspect that something is wrong with my definition. Not here, however. Instead we get the sneers: "if these Australian clubs are so obviously notable ..." Again, all this to fix a problem in Ireland. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Clubs or teams playing in Sydney Grade Cricket and Victorian Premier Cricket are clearly notable by virtue of the standard of cricket played, their distinguished history and the degree of coverage in the Australian media. It may be that they don't need to specifically be mentioned in the guidelines as notable, but if so then that should not be taken to mean that they are not notable. I've been away on holiday during most of this debate, and seeing the sheer volume of posts that the issue of club notability has provoked over the last couple of weeks I'm thankful for that. JH (talk page) 09:09, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Firstly, nothing can or should override the GNG. Secondly, verifiability does not equal notability. With the exception of the phrase "automatically qualified", I had no problem with the essence of the wording as it appeared here.[13] Moondyne (talk) 16:04, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Except the current wording does appear to override WP:GNG, the proposed one uses the community agreed wording from WP:CLUB. Mtking (talk) 20:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

So where does this leave this proposal ? - Change or no change ? 08:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

My reading of the discussion would be that there is "no consensus", which generally defaults to keep the status quo (ie no change). But that is only my reading of the discussion and I must admit my opinion on the issue is similar to Mattinbgn. Jenks24 (talk) 09:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
My view also is that this is "no consensus" and I am very loth to proceed in any direction if it is going to mean the departure of some of our oldest, wisest and most prolific members. That doesn't of course stop any individual from nominating any article at AfD, and out of a case-by-case process perhaps a different consensus will emerge. Johnlp (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd agree on "no consensus". It does appear to be going round in circles and has been quite petty at times. Sadly this isn't going to resolved anytime soon I feel. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I also agree that there is no consensus. As a consequence of this, it will have to be done on a case by case basis for now which, as Johnip intimates, would probably mean more AfDs etc. So, that's the way it will have to go. The length of this discussion, plus the fact that some articles were tagged for notability etc, some time ago, should hopefully have given those with an interest a suitable breathing space to resolve any issues on individual articles. Then, of course, they'll have another week or so while it is at AfD. - Sitush (talk) 16:55, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
I think we can reach a consensus here, it would appear that the only sticking point is the Sydney Grade Cricket and Victorian Premier Cricket removal, if those who supported the removal of those two could agree to them being re-added then I think then we could reach a consensus. I do not wish to see a messy series of AfD's on this subject. Mtking (talk) 23:01, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The entrenchment of systemic bias

To be blunt, this proposal is one giant extended middle finger pointed squarely at the nine ICC full member countries that are not England. As a result of the structure of cricket in England and because England has been quite free in extending first-class and List-A status to a much wider ranges of fixtures and teams compared to other countries, there are many, many cricket clubs in England that meet the revised notability guidelines and deemed suitable for a stand-alone article. In Australia, the rigid hierarchical and federal structure of cricket means that not one cricket club in the entire country is considered inherently notable and is to be permitted a stand-alone. Not one. A similar situation applies in WI, in NZ and I am guessing in the subcontinent and Africa as well.

I wouldn't mind so much if English cricket was demonstrably stronger and more popular than it is in the other full-member countries, but this is simply not true. An example may illustrate my point. Lets consider three clubs - Huntingdonshire County Cricket Club, Valley District Cricket Club and the Jamaican Melbourne Cricket Club. Among these three clubs, in all senses Huntingdonshire has the weakest case for notability. Valleys and Melbourne have a longer continuous history, have had a much greater impact on the game worldwide and at their peak played at a much higher standard and most likely attracted bigger crowds. It is certain there are sufficient sources to support articles on all of these three clubs. However under the current proposal, guess which club gets a stand-alone article. You guessed it, it's the English club! Mind you the likes of the powerful Japan national cricket team and Croatia national cricket team get their own stand-alone articles as well regardless that they would struggle to beat a Melbourne sub-district team, get less media coverage and attract less fans. The priorities of this project are seriously out-of-whack.

This project already is heavily weighted towards cricket in England. This is understandable - most of the active contributors to the project are English and enjoy easy access to a wide range of sources, both online and printed. It is an altogether good thing that this project's coverage of English cricket is so strong. However, a WikiProject that was worth anything would seek to improve the coverage of cricket in the other major nations and work to counter this inherent Systemic bias. Not this project, it seems. Instead, this project seeks to entrench the already overwhelming bias towards English topics and embed it into the very fabric of its operating rules!

I see that a list of players for a England minor county is up for FL status at the same time club cricket in the world outside England is sent to the ghetto. I don't say this to blame the nominator of that list for any of this but it is symptomatic of the direction this project is taking. From the outside, this project appears to focus on nothing but international cricket and the minutiae of cricket in England to the detriment of anything else. Most of the non-English contributors have left the project and to be honest I can't blame them. Coverage of cricket in the subcontinent happens despite the (non) efforts of this project. If this is the direction this project wants to take then fine that is your right, but I don't want to be part of it. This is a big mistake. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 08:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

But if the sources are not online and the project is weighted towards English contributors, by definition it will be difficult for most of those contributors to develop non-English articles. Yes, there will be books and magazines and I would hope that they are used but for things such as newspapers & periodicals it is going to be down to those nearest to the ground. This may be unfortunate, but what do you expect to be done about it? Insist on dual standards, perhaps? - Sitush (talk) 09:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
That is the whole point of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias. Other project try and work against it. WP:CRICKET encourages it. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I disagree, the guidelines as they stand now are heavily biased towards English and Australian club teams to the exclusion of others, the proposed new guideline is a much more level playing field, your objection stems from the removal of Grade Cricket, which by your own omission, in one state does not come up to the mark. I am sorry I fail to see how this is extending any bias. Mtking (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't agree with a number of the points you make, firstly and most importantly nothing is inherently notable (see WP:NRVE) secondly there are a large number of English leagues the current guidelines suggested competing teams were notable, that are omitted from this one, thirdly, even you agree that in the case of one states grade cricket the old guidelines were wrong in respect of Australia. Fourthly though relevant, the strength of a Cricket team has no impact on notability of that teams or club.
However I do agree with you that the the criteria for players is one that needs addressing, I know that "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire" is clearly borrowed from Soccer, it does not work for Soccer and am sure for the same reasons combined with different levels of coverage for the two sports does not work here. I hope that you do stay here and we can work on improving the quality of articles coving the sport. Mtking (talk) 09:21, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
" ... we can work on improving the quality of articles coving the sport" What cricket articles have you actually improved? What interest have you ever shown in cricket prior to this discussion? It doesn't matter. This discussion and the views of the contributors who have been here for some time have convinced me that this project and I have irreconcilable differences. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Excluding the fact that Huntingdonshire has a longer history (I believe back to the 1830s), not to mention that it has played List A cricket - hell it's way more notable than Valley District Cricket Club and the Jamaican Melbourne Cricket Club. Higher standard maybe, more crowds maybe (but on the crowds point the recent Celebrity Cricket League nonsense would be notable). The English club gets the article because it has played notable cricket. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Firstly, I am not arguing Huntingdonshire is not notable, I am arguing that other clubs in other countries are equally notable. That Huntingdonshire is notable because it has played List-A is precisely my point. For reasons unrelated to playing strength, support or history, the rules are written so that a wide range of English clubs are notable and no Australian or WI clubs are. This has happened simply because the English authorities are much more liberal in granting List-A and FC status. It is the very definition of systemic bias. Finally according to the article the current version of Huntingdon CCC was only formed in 1948 having folded on more than one occasion. It is a bit rich to reach back to earlier iterations to claim a longer history than Melbourne Cricket Club (Jamaica) which has an uninterrupted 119 year history. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 11:33, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
But no one is arguing that those clubs aren't notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 16:39, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't see this as at all trying to remove or restrict the addition of non-English cricket clubs: only that those cricket clubs, like English ones, have to show their notability. Yes, the List A and FC ruling gives far more English clubs than Australian ones notability, but it is worth noting that South Africa, India and Pakistan also have plenty of first-class sides. I said above that I'm sure Australian grade cricket would be able to prove that it is notable, but the only problem would be getting access to said sources for an English Wikipedian. It would be naive to write grade cricket into the notability guideline if there would be noone who could access sources to back this up at an AfD, don't you think? I am generally an inclusionist, but the problem with club cricket is defining which levels are and are not notable: something that becomes even trickier when one is dealing with multiple nations, especially when actually very few of us seem to follow club cricket that closely. Harrias talk 16:45, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Moving on

I have a lot of sympathy with User:Mattinbgn’s viewpoint and have been disturbed for some days by some of the language used in this discussion and the uncertain motives of some people who appear to have driven this debate but whose knowledge of cricket appears limited, whose past contribution to this project has been negligible and whose talents appear to be to pick holes in things rather than help repair them. I think they would do well to remember that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress. If they were keen to help progress the work, by adding references, for instance, where needed, rather than just pointing out faults and incompletenesses, then I at least would find their constant drip-drip of advice more acceptable. A period of quiet from them now would be very welcome.

In that period, I think it’s up to the members of this project who might actually do some of the work involved to determine how to do it. Talk of “culls” and such like is inappropriate and I want nothing to do with that. What’s needed is maybe a system of flagging up articles that need more work: the Unreferenced BLPs project has a system that delivers articles that need verification and referencing on a regular basis, and I think we need something like that. I wouldn’t have a clue how that works or could be adapted for us, but I’m sure someone around here would. Some of the Unreffed BLPs, on inspection, turn out to be candidates for AfD; but not many, at least in our area. But this two-stage process is in my view a civilised way to proceed and might produce progress without diverting project members too far away from their usual activities. Of course, our new friends are welcome to join in and help if they wish. What do others think?

BTW, referencing for Australian grade club cricket articles is not that hard to do from 12,000 miles away: Trove is available worldwide and http://news.google.com/newspapers has The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald among many others. Our lack of similar articles from other parts of the world, though, may be more difficult to fix. Johnlp (talk) 19:46, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Take a look at Milnrow Cricket Club. - Sitush (talk) 20:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
To clarify the above, it was an uncited single-line stub. It is not now. It probably isn't notable, but I've had a go. - Sitush (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Excellent. :-) Johnlp (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Fantastic stuff. The references you've added make the article more than fit the GNG. This shows that a club that isn't notable per the above proposal can be shown to be notable via other means. I don't care if the club is in England, Australia, Ireland, South Africa or Timbuktu - if enough references can be found, it's notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
Not to be a curmudgeon, but we have to understand why exactly you now believe the article to meet GNG? Why is it notable? Is it that it is so old? Or received grants? --HighKing (talk) 13:11, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Because some of the references provided are of significant coverage from reliable sources that are (except one) independent of the subject. Do you disagree? Andrew nixon (talk) 15:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it is tenuous, which is why I said that it is "probably" still not notable. I just found what I could and, unfortunately, the expansion to include past pro players is not useful on notability because it implies some sort of inheritance. A couple of local newspaper articles (same publisher, shared content) and a couple of grants do not mean a lot. If every outfit in the UK that received a grant from the Lottery Fund was deemed notable then there would be quite an expansion of UK articles & yet the usefulness of WP would probably not be increased. There have been literally hundreds of thousands of such grants, and a lot of grant awards work on a "matching funds" basis, so the fact that the Co-op chips in at around the same time could possibly be a related "single event". My point in raising this article here was to demonstrate that I have at least tried, and did so even prior to Johnlp's request. My constructive contributions in other subject areas, I admit, massively exceed this solitary attempt in cricket. However, if Mooretwin did what I demonstrated then certain Irish cricket articles might possibly still be around; and they can still become undead. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
But take Chichester Priory Park Cricket Club, for which I found a report in the Scotsman which details the important role the club played in financing the 1876-77 tour. Would this role make the club notable (without other sources and additional information being found)? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It seems effectively to be a SPS wrapped in a newspaper column. Given that book reviews are usually deprecated as being tertiary sources (except for articles about the book itself), this might be slightly dodgy ground. - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Internatioanal Masroor Twenty20 Tournament 2009

I have zero understanding of Cricket, but an editor I was watching created Internatioanal Masroor Twenty20 Tournament 2009 so I gave it a bit of obvious cleanup, again, with zero understanding. I have no idea if it merits an article or not, so I leave it here for your consideration. Best regards. --Muhandes (talk) 08:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It does indeed fail WP:CRIN, so I've PRODed it. Thanks for being it to WP:CRIC's attention. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:33, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
No problem. I suspect Masroor International Cricket Tournament is the same? --Muhandes (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
I just realized, these were all Coat-hangers for religious preaching. Once I removed the preaching, the editor himself blanks the page. --Muhandes (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Off topic, but the examples on the coat rack page gave me a good chuckle. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, the stuff on halibut is fascinating. And almost certainly true. Johnlp (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Another editor made an article for this years Masroor International Cricket Tournament, which was speedy deleted. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Peter Sharpe

Well, confused would be an understatement! Peter Sharpe, one List A appearance for Norfolk, but differing personal details on CI and CA. Which is correct? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Are we sure that they are actually the same person? Could two people called Peter Sharpe have played for Norfolk in 1965? Looking in Wisden 1966, the plot thickens. They have PJ Sharpe playing for Norfolk against Hampshire in the Gillette Cup in 1965, but scoring 2 rather than a duck. His bowling figures are given as 13-1-38-1. (Incidentally, none other than HC Blofeld opened the batting for Norfolk and made 60.) Further research suugests that CI have confused him with [14] who CA shows to have appeared for Sussex Second XI. JH (talk page) 10:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Incidentally, the "wrong" Peter Sharpe has his obituary in Wisden 2001, and would probably merit a Wiki article himself, though for non-cricketing reasons, as he was Chief Constable of Hertfordshire from 1994 to 2000. JH (talk page) 10:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Good detective work JH. I'll let CI know later on. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:32, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
CI have sorted it out now! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

ICC EAP Cricket Trophy (List A)

Is this trophy seriously classified as List A? Hack (talk) 04:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Just noticed all this on my watchlist and was wondering what the hell the mover was thinking. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:12, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

NCU Senior League Premier League

Withdrawn : Since they clearly fail WP:GNG looks like we will have to go through AfD on them then. Mtking (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Having reviwed the articles on the members of the NCU Senior League Premier League :

With the one exception of Instonians Cricket Club (as this is a joint Cricket and Rugby club) I am proposing to redirect them to NCU Senior League. Any cricket related content in any of the articles that is sourced to third party sources (at the moment nothing) would be merged into NCU Senior League. Mtking (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Mtking (talk) 07:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Will the ICC give Ireland Test status all ready, then it'll make what and what isn't notable a hell of a lot easier. On this proposal, Support. I've been persuaded by the below comments to change my mind, it was afterall about a week ago no consensus was reached. Oppose AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • I oppose this, at least for the time being while other more lowly clubs in Northern Ireland are going through the AfD process. The long and at-times ill-tempered discussion above came to no consensus, and I think we should respect that. This looks to me like an attempt to bounce this project into taking action that was pretty specifically the subject of the "no consensus". I for one don't want to be bounced: not yet, anyway. Johnlp (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
    I don't think I am bouncing anything, I was trying to follow point 5 of WP:BEFORE, I don't feel that these clubs meet either WP:CLUB or WP:GNG and am trying to avoid other batch of AfD's. Mtking (talk) 02:10, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, User:Mtking, but you are to my mind starting to sound as if you've swallowed a rulebook and forgotten that projects such as this consist of volunteers with an actual interest in and commitment to the subject we are writing about. What is wrong with laying off for a bit and following the path that User:Sitush advocates, below? WP is a work-in-progress, not the finished article. Johnlp (talk) 06:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - in principle I agree with this but the timing seems wrong. As Johnlp says, we have only just had a long discussion which included this issue, reached no consensus and gave us all some food for thought. Some people need some thinking time, I suspect, even if I do not. In the interval there is nothing to prevent further test AfDs of articles involving clubs from, well, pretty much anywhere outside the top levels in any country. - Sitush (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cricinfo templates

Are {{India - Cricinfo All Time Test XI}}, {{West Indies - Cricinfo All Time XI}}, {{Pakistan - Cricinfo All Time XI}} are valid and necessary templates? Given the number of templates in most of these articles I don't think so; also, what makes Cricinfo teams special? I'm not sure what their criteria was, but I believe this was editorial judgment of 3-5 of their panelists. This is the India announcement. —SpacemanSpiff 12:04, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Delete them, they're completely unnecessary. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Devon cricketers

With User:Johnlp creating Ian Bishop (Somerset and Surrey cricketer), that completes all the Devon cricketers deemed notable. I believe that becomes the first English county to have an article about every cricketer that is notable? AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

... which is perhaps notable in itself! Well done. - Sitush (talk) 10:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

The shortest first-class cricket career

Down in the nether regions of Somerset first-class cricketers lurks Edward Stanley (cricketer) who seems to me to have had possibly the shortest ever first-class career. Unlike some of our other obscure candidates, such as Neville Shelmerdine, who neither batted nor bowled but presumably had to hang around for most of a three- or four-day game, Stanley seems not to have turned up for the first day of his single first-class game, when both sides were all out once (Somerset one man short) and Somerset began their second innings; on the second day, Somerset's second innings resumed at 36 for 4, and Stanley batted at No 11 and was out for 0 as the innings ended for just 92. Despite a rain interruption, Lancashire had won the match 12 minutes after the lunch interval. At the most, his first-class career seems to have been around two hours. Any contenders for an even shorter career? Johnlp (talk) 16:28, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

There's surely someone whose only first-class appearance was in a match that was abandoned after the toss, and therefore counts as a match. Andrew nixon (talk) 17:03, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but my suspicion is that they'd probably have to while away a day or two in the pavilion before the abandonment. Stanley's tour de force was to show up only on the second morning, by which time the game had been effectively lost. Maybe there's someone who got felled by the first ball of a match and carted off to hospital...? Johnlp (talk) 17:25, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

This has to be the weakest victory for WP:NOTABLE ever. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:21, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but can you get it to GA, like we did with our "meets WP:NSPORTS, single game, no impact player", Ken Hall (footballer)? The-Pope (talk) 23:49, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
Not sure there's enough material for that, though dying in Accra at the time of the Fourth Ashanti War perhaps offers possibilities for expansion. Johnlp (talk) 07:23, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
The Ashanti War would certainly assist matters here. If he was also the only known Somerset player to take to the ground with dirty bootlaces in a match against Lancashire who also played at 11, was ducked etc then that might be a killer point ;) It's a different world, this sport, but even to an outsider it is sometimes fascinating! Sad to say, despite living in Manchester, I have only once been inside LCCC Old Trafford ... and that was for a tasting of single malts! It was, IIRC, Chucky or Tony Settle who invited me and, hey, I enjoyed it but the only game being played that evening was across the road. Boo, hiss.
Congrats, BTW, on completing the Devon list being discussed below. I believe that there are still some articles missing in the sphere of mycology and entomology, so when the cricket lists are sorted perhaps the project can assist in those areas? At least, maybe, the bit relating to crickets?
I am joking folks, honest. What has been achieved recently is down to the effort and example of many people involved here and that in itself is to be applauded. One of the most fascinating things about this project is seeing just what interests people who genuinely want to add to the sum of knowledge within the bounds set by the community, and just how dedicated they are to cover the ground. It is heartlifting. - Sitush (talk) 23:33, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Geoff Boycott

Does anyone have any pictures of Geoffrey? I've removed the hand drawn picture that looks like he's having some sort of fit, because the picture just looks dreadful! Maybe if any members are going to any internationals this summer, they can hunt out the TMS box and get a picture. User:Ukexpat has emailed the TMS team to ask them to release some images to replace the dreaful drawings with, but to no avail. I won't get another chance to snap him until September when England play India at the Rose Bowl (assuming he will be commentating on that match). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

I've been asking for one for months. S.G.(GH) ping! 18:23, 10 July 2011 (UTC)
I think it actually goes back years! --Dweller (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
Yup - here you are in action more than three years ago! --Dweller (talk) 11:14, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

Congratulations to Johnlp, who after much slaving away, created the article H. E. Winter, which completed List of Somerset CCC players, meaning that every player who has appeared for Somerset County Cricket Club in first-class, List A or Twenty20 cricket now has an article. Well done! Harrias talk 20:51, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic! That's Devon CCC, the cricket boards and now Somerset done. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:27, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you, but I think User:Loganberry sets the precedent in all of this with his fantastic single-handed Worcestershire work, and I think User:Nick mallory ensured that most if not all the Yorkshire players had the outline of an article. Not to mention AA's great work and that of Bobo192 as well. Johnlp (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Well done! JH (talk page) 09:16, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletion

I know some people frown upon deletions being mentioned on project talk pages, but we've got a couple at deletion sorting that are going to be relisted in the coming days, each only have one vote. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

David Brown

We need to make some kind of distinction between two cricketing David Browns. Currently, one exists at David Brown (cricketer, born 1942) - though there are two such-named cricketers, both born in the same year. One is this player, while another is this cricketer, who played for Gloucestershire.

Any ideas? Bobo. 19:11, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest "David Brown (Gloucestershire cricketer)" for the one who played for Gloucestershire. Whether the other one should for consistency be renamed as "David Brown (Warwickshire cricketer)" is a moot point. But on checking I now find that we already have another player, David Brown (cricketer born 1982), which complicates matters. JH (talk page) 21:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
There's also David Brown (cricketer born 1941), though he's Scottish, so that's not so much of a worry, and another David Brown, born in 1900, also Scottish (here). I'd probably suggest using middle names - David W. J. Brown and David J. Brown (cricketer) - although the first one looks a bit untidy. I'd oppose using Gloucestershire or Warwickshire cricketer - both players played for more than one first-class team. The one who playing Test cricket for England could possibly get David Brown (England cricketer), as the primary topic. IgnorantArmies?! 02:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
This is why I don't like using (Xteam cricketer) as part of the disambiguation - many players played for more than one first-class team, so disambiguation by one team seems too much of a generalization. Bobo. 09:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Cricketers who fought in the First World War

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 12#Category:Cricketers who fought in the First World War may be of interest. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 06:33, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Notable Buckinghamshire cricketers

I'm going away for a week or so, so if anyone wants to have a crack at some of the 18 remaining notable Buckinghamshire cricketers feel free to do so. There's a Bishops son, a WWII naval captain, a writer.... so an interesting mix. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Junaid Khan

According to Cricinfo he's played 36 first-class matches and 34 LA, but CricketArchive has it down as 37 FC and 34 LA. Any ideas which one is correct? Nev1 (talk) 17:17, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Probably CricketArchive. The match in question is Abbottabad v Khan Research Laboratories in December 2007. The CA scorecard has him scoring no runs and taking two wickets, which accounts for the discrepancy. On the Cricinfo scorecard, they have him as Mohammad Junaid. CA doesn't have a Mohammad Junaid playing first-class cricket in recent years. Andrew nixon (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Titans of Cricket

Is anyone familiar with the four-team competition this IP is talking about? Having looked at the website it looks like a marketing gimmick to me and not notable, but what do others think? Nev1 (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, the wording is certainly promotional even if the principles of notability etc are met. - Sitush (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

MCC Universities

The MCC Universities (MCCUs) are what prior to the 2010 season were known as the University Centres of Cricketing Excellence (UCCEs). I imagine that the old name may have prompted too much unkind laughter; also MCC may have wished their funding to be acknowledged in the name. I've just belatedly updated the articles for Cambridge University Cricket Club, Oxford University Cricket Club, Durham MCC University and Loughborough MCC University to reflect the change. It all got a bit messy. In the last two cases, where the old article name incorporated "UCCE", I've moved the pages. I've also created various redirects. The other two MCCUs, Cardiff and Leeds, don't play any f-c fixtures and don't have articles of their own. However I've added an MCC Universities section to the MCC article and set up a redirect to point to it. JH (talk page) 20:09, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

How does this work? Is this the MCC sponsoring the cricketing centres? Hack (talk) 06:28, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes. See MCC Universities information & history - lords.org for details. JH (talk page) 08:46, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for that - the MCCU website didn't spell it out so clearly. Hack (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket/Archive_71&oldid=1086386547"