The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 19:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Contested PROD. Non-notable cricketer who fails the inclusion guidelines of WP:CRIN and by extension WP:ATH. While he may have had a lengthy club career, this is no claim to notability. He has played for Singapore, but the matches he played in were at a minor level. A search for sources brings up very little in the way of things which establish notability per WP:GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has been outstanding for Singapore and played many times in the ICC Trophy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DragTian (talk • contribs) 19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the category, Category:Singaporean cricketers is then funny. you have a long list of persons, none of whom, are born in Singapore, yet the best S'pore-born cricketer does not qualify. perhaps they should not be called Singaporean cricketers
Change the category from 'Singaporean cricketers' to 'Singapore-based cricketers' since they are not Singaporeans.
Comment - Who says Stacey Muruthi is the best Singaporean cricketer? That's your opinion and isn't based in cited sources. I don't even know why I'm bothering to ask that. Fact of the matter is those cricketers have played a major format of the game and have played for Singapore, regardless of where they were born, they are able, as Singaporean citizens to represent Singapore (three were subjects of the British Empire). You haven't actually provided a valid reason why the article should stay, simply stating first off he was "outstanding" and now conjuring up some argument about where players are born. There's a simple reason he doesn't qualify for an article, which I took time to explain on your talk page. Evidently you have chosen to ignore that. Please sign your comments with ~~~~ after making a comment. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Muruthi may not be the best, but he is certainly one of the best, according to Singapore media. As for non-Singapore-born cricketers, there should at least be citations that they have taken up Singapore citizenships to qualify as Singaporean cricketers. And since Singaporean Muruthi does not qualify as Singaporean cricketers more than yet-to-be-proven non-Singapore-born 'Singaporean' cricketers, a workaround will be to remove him as a Singaporean cricketers but as someone who has contributed to Singapore cricket. We leave for another time to debate whether the no-citation non-Singaproe-born cricketers qualify as Singaporean cricketers or should they have been Singapore-based cricketers. DragTian (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment So my question is why the non-Singapore-born cricketers who have played some matches at a higher level qualify to be Singaporean cricketers when they are not even Singaporeans, the very basis of eligibility to be Singaporean cricketers?DragTian (talk) 04:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why do you keep going on about nationality and how "Muruthi does not qualify as a Singaporean cricketer": it's not a case of whether he qualifies as a Singaporean cricketer (this is not the issue), it's whether he qualifies full stop as a notable cricketer. As I've told you time and time again, he doesn't: No first-class, List AorTwenty20 appearances. No appearances in an ICC Trophy final. No appearances in World Cricket Division Five or higher. I'm not sure how much more simply than that I can put it. This isn't about nationality and who qualifies to play for whom, it simply boils down WP:CRIN and WP:ATH guidelines, neither of which this article fulfills. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I can only agree that the list of so called Singaporean cricketers qualified as notable cricketers in wikipedia but not as Singaporean cricketers because they are not Singaporeans in the first place. As for Muruthi, I have suggested a workaround that he be taken out as Singaporean cricketers although he is a Singaporean, born and bred, but not consider notable in wikipedia, so his entry be kept as someone who has contributed to cricket in Singapore. The classification of 'Singaporean cricketers' is certainly not true becuase the rest do not qualify, "Classification: By nationality: Singaporean" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Singaporean_cricketers
Reply In short, the category, Singaporean cricketers should be deleted because no Singaporean cricketers qualified to be notable in wikipedia. DragTian (talk) 18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - *sighs* This discussion isn't about Category:Singaporean cricketers, it's about the notability of Muruthi, for the fourth or fifth time.WP:CRIC is the place to go to suggest changes, not AfD discussion pages. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Alright. The Category:Singaporean cricketers which is wrong is a separate issue. As for Muruthi, we can keep the entry as someone who has contributed to cricket in Singapore, not as a notable cricketer according to wikipedia standards. DragTian (talk) 01:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references from the Straits Times and others are enough to satisfy the general notability criteria in my opinion. Really, this deletion is an indication of the cricket project's pathetic old school attitude towards cricketers who play for non test nations - this guy played 81 times for his country, 25 of which were in officially ICC sanctioned internationals and people argue that he isn't notable when they'd defend to the death the notability of J Smith who played one FC match in which he didn't bat or bowl for Lord Snooty's XI in 1823. It's ridiculous. Also, Comment can the person removing the Singaporean cricketers category from players who play for Singapore please stop? Per the cricket projects usual practice, that category is for anyone who has played for Singapore. Andrew nixon (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Limiting player articles to those outlined in WP:CRIN was a decision reached by cricket project members a couple of years ago following on from the Basanta Regmi AfD. Whether it's "pathetic old school attitude" toward non-FC/LA/T20 cricketers, meh. But it was a decision reached by members of the project, and endorsed by yourself Andrew: "Mostly fine, but I'm not sure about making all ICC Trophy tournaments notable - that's a lot more players being made notable than if just WCL3-5 was made notable (up to 50% of those players are already probably notable anyway!). Prior to 2005, I'd just stick with the final of the ICC Trophy/World Cup Qualifier. Since 2005 it's been a List A/ODI tournament anyway, so isn't an issue. Andrew nixon (talk) 09:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)" Under current guidelines it doesn't qualify, the first source is a clipping of a friendly against Pakistan, and doesn't do much to establish notability, while the other requires a log in. The place for changes to WP:CRIN is the projects talk page, in a sport heaped in tradition, yes I stick to the letter with it! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Any further comments going on about categories I shall remove, as this discussion isn't about bloody categories (got a problem with categories, go to WP:CRIC's talk page), nor has it anything to do with my personal opinion on teams over reliance on expats. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Also only vote once, you have voted at the top of the discussion. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Ok. So many of my comments are removed. I changed above vote to comment. I think Cricket projects should go back to redefine everything. Fine. You don't want to talk about categories and your expats vs locals thing. It is like limiting players who have played in football World Cup as notable, while players like Ryan Giggs, the most decorated footballer in English football history, cannot make it because he play for Wales, a small and weak country, which could never reach the World Cup. DragTian (talk) 18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My participation in that previous debate was attempting to seek a compromise. I'm pretty sure that I'm on record as stating that I think all players to have played in official internationals are inherently notable, as is the case on Wikipedia for soccer. The simple facts here are that we know much more about this guy than several FC players from the 19th century. The guy played 81 times for his country and he still isn't notable? And a guy who played a single FC match in the 19th century for whom we have no information is? Seriously? Am I the only person who thinks that's ludicrous? Anyway, there's really no point arguing this here, and there certainly isn't at WP:Cricket. Andrew nixon (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Short reply: To which question... Andrew nixon (talk) 19:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: From WP:CRIN – "Judge notability by reference to a source that makes clear it is discussing a major player in historical rather than statistical terms." It strikes me that this chap is probably historically significant in terms of developing the sport of cricket in Singapore: 45 years and all. Johnlp (talk) 23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources in the article demonstrate a pass of the general notability guideline, which is not overridden by any local consensus at a Wikiproject. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: Keep the article. DragTian (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Final Comment: Can this discussion be closed now? Thanks to every one who have participated in the discussion. Your views are much appreciated. DragTian (talk) 15:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of those occasional cricketers that fails (IMHO) CRIN but passes GNG, which is usually a higher bar, but which in any case has far greater weight. --Dweller (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
