Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Main pageDiscussionNews &
open tasks
Deletion
alerts
The NetsAssessmentThe
Library
ContestsAwardsMembers


    Falling standards

    [edit]

    Now we have Under-19 cricketers without senior debuts being added and deemed notable, largely due to WP:REFBOMB or WP:INHERITED. Given the above topic, do we actually have any proper, quality article creation/editing taking place anymore? AA (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:GNG is the main criteria for inclusion. THis seems like WP:FORUMSHOPPING of the conversation at Rocky Flintoff AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is zero consensus for the inclusion of under-19 cricketers. It has never been discussed here and their inclusion has always resulted in deletion. Now all of a sudden the Second XI Championship is the highest domestic level, and age-group cricket is now the top-level of international cricket. Of all the history of cricket and the thousands of pages needing expansion, we instead get "kids" whose matches fall well short of this important document. AA (talk) 22:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Now all of a sudden the Second XI Championship is the highest domestic level, and age-group cricket is now the top-level of international cricket. Neither of these things are true. As I mentioned at that AFD, it is possible to pass WP:GNG without being at the top level, just like you can play top level matches and not be notable. All of these top level guidelines do not override WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted, GNG is the benchmark test for notability of sportspeople, regardless of what level they have played at. If that guideline is met and there is enough information in reliable sources to write a proper article, then we should have one. wjematherplease leave a message... 18:21, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There is absolutely no doubt that the coverage he has received is because of his famous father. If he didn't have a famous father, nobody would bat an eyelid to any record in the Second XI Championship being broken, I can think of a few where no coverage whatsoever has been received. If we include any old cricketers, we become TriviaPedia, a concoction of random cricket trivia instead of a high quality database. Sad times. AA (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you seen Rocky Flintoff bat? He's another Joe Root and a dead cert for England. Desertarun (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Desertarun:. And? Is the bar for notability now "he's another Joe Root and a dead cert for England"; if so, it's pretty low. We have articles popping up on Archie Vaughan and Farhan Ahmed. So what exactly makes these two notable? What have they done in cricket? There's a crazy argument on one AfD for these that signing a professional contract which is covered by loads of sources = notability. Rubbish! AA (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For notability and suitability for an article, the question is not "what have they done?" but "what coverage is there?"; the answer to the former is often an indicator to the answer to the latter, but sometimes it is utterly irrelevant. If the appropriate coverage exists (which of course, has to go beyond the routine pro contract signing/press release blurb), then they are notable. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Signing a professional contract isn't notable, and neither is making a century the Second XI Championship. Essentially, any coverage of Rocky Flintoff or Archie Vaughan exists purely because they have famous father's. The WP:INHERITED is as clear as daylight! I mean, take Rocky Flintoff's page. 8 references to say he has signed a contract at Lancashire. Eight!!! That's terrible referencing and totally WP:REFBOMB. Apparently Lugnuts bar was too low, but here we have these... oh and just discovered Farhan Ahmed... what has he done to warrant inclusion? AA (talk) 21:22, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So a great player of the sport's early days is not notable because there was minimal media coverage during his lifetime, but some nonentity who got his name into a tabloid last week is an absolute must for an article. Not so much falling standards as no standards. 92.17.1.49 (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quite agree. AA (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why the coverage exists is not relevant, and you appear to be misunderstanding NOTINHERITED. When the coverage is of the individual, and meets the threshold for GNG (because there is far more depth than just reporting a contract signing), they are presumed notable.
    We have countless articles on early "first class" cricketers for who we have no evidence of actual achievement (since playing first class cricket in this era was too often not based on ability or achievement at all), with references that are limited to routine announcements, directory listings (commonly school, university, armed services, etc.) and the odd mention in a match report/scorecard.
    It's hard to say standards are falling when we have these older articles, let alone the thousands of formulaic db scrapes created by Lugnuts, Bobo and others – the articles on Flintoff and Vaughan's boys are far higher standard than all of these. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:57, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Isn't it a good thing then that one English county is currently at 63% complete coverage ;) AA (talk) 23:01, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Only if all those articles have multiple GNG qualifying sources. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This article is about Rocky Flintoff, not his dad. Your argument that Sigcov is trumped by inherited is very weak. Desertarun (talk) 21:56, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ...which mentions in some detail all their familial details. Could have picked a better not WP:INHERITED example than that! AA (talk) 23:00, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He's now made his first team debut for Lancashire. He gets lots of coverage because he's really good. Desertarun (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now qualifies for an article. Although his two appearances so far haven't impressed! AA (talk) 14:53, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    FLRC nomination

    [edit]

    I have nominated List of Indian Premier League captains for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an old FA article from 2007 which has not run on the front page, so I submitted it for Sept 26th (his 81st birthday). However, I know next to nothing about Cricket, so please double check the blurb to see if it is accurate. I tried to condense the lede down as much as possible. Second, if someone could check over the article to see if it's up to date, that would help as well.

    Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rafiullah (cricketer)#Requested move 6 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 11:47, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rafiullah (cricketer)#Requested move 6 July 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂[𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 22:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]