339:- 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.
640:
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!
716:: 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 Knowledge 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
695:- 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
447:- 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
776:: 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.
639:
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
504:
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:
608:
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
720:
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
609:
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,
203:. 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
382:
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
164:
613:
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.
282:
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
591:
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.
311:
158:
119:
699:, 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.
289:
395:
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
869:
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. --
657:- 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
124:
794:
567:
92:
87:
96:
831:: Can this discussion be closed now? Thanks to every one who have participated in the discussion. Your views are much appreciated.
588:
562:
517:
356:
279:
79:
17:
241:
179:
500:
because they are not
Singaporeans in the first place. As for Muruthi, I have suggested a workaround that he be taken out as
146:
747:
683:
666:
645:
575:
480:
368:
344:
266:
212:
360:
420:
So my question is why the non-Singapore-born cricketers who have played some matches at a higher level qualify to be
332:
Change the category from 'Singaporean cricketers' to 'Singapore-based cricketers' since they are not
Singaporeans.
897:
40:
400:
391:
more than yet-to-be-proven non-Singapore-born 'Singaporean' cricketers, a workaround will be to remove him as a
140:
743:
679:
662:
641:
571:
539:
513:
501:
497:
493:
476:
464:
425:
421:
396:
392:
388:
384:
364:
340:
262:
208:
878:
861:
840:
823:
806:
785:
768:
751:
734:
708:
687:
670:
649:
623:
600:
579:
551:
529:
484:
437:
412:
372:
348:
325:
303:
270:
245:
216:
136:
61:
857:
802:
764:
730:
619:
893:
36:
186:
460:
229:
661:'s talk page), nor has it anything to do with my personal opinion on teams over reliance on expats.
832:
815:
700:
592:
543:
521:
448:
429:
404:
233:
172:
83:
849:
836:
819:
704:
596:
547:
525:
433:
408:
237:
874:
853:
798:
760:
726:
722:
635:
was a decision reached by cricket project members a couple of years ago following on from the
615:
321:
299:
258:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
892:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
781:
152:
57:
542:
should be deleted because no Singaporean cricketers qualified to be notable in wikipedia.
658:
632:
506:
468:
463:
or higher. I'm not sure how much more simply than that I can put it. This isn't about
452:
196:
75:
67:
636:
472:
204:
200:
870:
317:
295:
113:
777:
53:
696:
225:. Has been outstanding for Singapore and played many times in the ICC Trophy.
195:
Contested PROD. Non-notable cricketer who fails the inclusion guidelines of
456:
424:
when they are not even Singaporeans, the very basis of eligibility to be
459:
appearances. No appearances in an ICC Trophy final. No appearances in
565:, it's about the notability of Muruthi, for the fourth or fifth time.
678:- Also only vote once, you have voted at the top of the discussion.
797:, which is not overridden by any local consensus at a Wikiproject.
570:
is the place to go to suggest changes, not AfD discussion pages.
886:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
516:? No true-blue Singaporean can accept that. They can be called
496:
qualified as notable cricketers in wikipedia but not as
793:. The sources in the article demonstrate a pass of the
507:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Category:Singaporean_cricketers
109:
105:
101:
171:
475:
guidelines, neither of which this article fulfills.
387:. And since Singaporean Muruthi does not qualify as
312:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
900:). No further edits should be made to this page.
631:- Limiting player articles to those outlined in
492:- I can only agree that the list of so called
465:nationality and who qualifies to play for whom
185:
8:
310:Note: This debate has been included in the
290:list of Cricket-related deletion discussions
288:Note: This debate has been included in the
309:
287:
518:Cricketers who have represented Singapore
512:Will you agree that they be removed as
7:
848:: You don't get to decide that. See
759:- Short reply: To which question...
261:are not reasons to keep an article.
24:
589:Category:Singaporean cricketers
563:Category:Singaporean cricketers
357:Category:Singaporean cricketers
280:Category:Singaporean cricketers
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
795:general notability guideline
561:This discussion isn't about
461:World Cricket Division Five
361:Category:English cricketers
917:
879:19:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
862:16:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
841:15:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
824:13:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
807:11:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
786:23:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
769:19:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
752:18:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
735:18:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
709:18:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
688:17:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
671:17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
650:17:51, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
624:06:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
601:01:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
580:18:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
552:18:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
530:17:46, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
485:16:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
438:04:23, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
413:01:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
401:Singapore-based cricketers
373:17:43, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
349:17:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
326:15:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
304:15:21, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
271:19:38, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
246:19:07, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
217:17:09, 15 April 2012 (UTC)
62:19:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
399:or should they have been
889:Please do not modify it.
538:In short, the category,
32:Please do not modify it.
467:, it simply boils down
359:is a long list?!?! Try
540:Singaporean cricketers
514:Singaporean cricketers
502:Singaporean cricketers
498:Singaporean cricketers
494:Singaporean cricketers
426:Singaporean cricketers
422:Singaporean cricketers
397:Singaporean cricketers
393:Singaporean cricketers
389:Singaporean cricketers
385:Singaporean cricketers
814:: Keep the article.
742:- Short answer: no.
259:Personal preferences
744:AssociateAffiliate
680:AssociateAffiliate
663:AssociateAffiliate
642:AssociateAffiliate
572:AssociateAffiliate
477:AssociateAffiliate
365:AssociateAffiliate
341:AssociateAffiliate
263:AssociateAffiliate
209:AssociateAffiliate
48:The result was
328:
315:
306:
293:
249:
232:comment added by
199:and by extension
908:
891:
316:
294:
278:- the category,
248:
226:
190:
189:
175:
127:
117:
99:
34:
916:
915:
911:
910:
909:
907:
906:
905:
904:
898:deletion review
887:
418:Further comment
354:Further comment
227:
132:
123:
90:
74:
71:
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
914:
912:
903:
902:
882:
881:
864:
843:
826:
809:
788:
771:
754:
737:
711:
690:
673:
652:
626:
603:
582:
554:
510:
509:
487:
442:
441:
440:
377:
376:
375:
330:
329:
307:
284:
283:
273:
251:
250:
193:
192:
129:
76:Stacey Muruthi
70:
68:Stacey Muruthi
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
913:
901:
899:
895:
890:
884:
883:
880:
876:
872:
868:
865:
863:
859:
855:
851:
847:
844:
842:
838:
834:
830:
829:Final Comment
827:
825:
821:
817:
813:
810:
808:
804:
800:
796:
792:
789:
787:
783:
779:
775:
772:
770:
766:
762:
758:
755:
753:
749:
745:
741:
738:
736:
732:
728:
724:
719:
715:
712:
710:
706:
702:
698:
694:
691:
689:
685:
681:
677:
674:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
651:
647:
643:
638:
637:Basanta Regmi
634:
630:
627:
625:
621:
617:
612:
607:
604:
602:
598:
594:
590:
587:Alright. The
586:
583:
581:
577:
573:
569:
566:
564:
558:
555:
553:
549:
545:
541:
537:
534:
533:
532:
531:
527:
523:
519:
515:
508:
505:Singaporean"
503:
499:
495:
491:
488:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
462:
458:
454:
450:
446:
443:
439:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
416:
415:
414:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
390:
386:
381:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
358:
355:
352:
351:
350:
346:
342:
338:
335:
334:
333:
327:
323:
319:
313:
308:
305:
301:
297:
291:
286:
285:
281:
277:
274:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
253:
252:
247:
243:
239:
235:
231:
224:
221:
220:
219:
218:
214:
210:
206:
202:
198:
188:
184:
181:
178:
174:
170:
166:
163:
160:
157:
154:
151:
148:
145:
142:
138:
135:
134:Find sources:
130:
126:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
888:
885:
866:
854:Andrew nixon
845:
828:
811:
799:Phil Bridger
790:
773:
761:Andrew nixon
756:
739:
727:Andrew nixon
717:
713:
692:
675:
654:
628:
616:Andrew nixon
610:
605:
584:
560:
556:
535:
511:
489:
444:
417:
379:
353:
336:
331:
275:
254:
228:— Preceding
222:
194:
182:
176:
168:
161:
155:
149:
143:
133:
49:
47:
31:
28:
850:WP:CLOSEAFD
559:- *sighs*
449:first-class
159:free images
812:Conclusion
723:WP:Cricket
697:Ryan Giggs
894:talk page
318:• Gene93k
296:• Gene93k
37:talk page
896:or in a
833:DragTian
816:DragTian
701:DragTian
593:DragTian
544:DragTian
522:DragTian
520:though.
457:Twenty20
430:DragTian
405:DragTian
242:contribs
234:DragTian
230:unsigned
120:View log
39:or in a
871:Dweller
846:Comment
757:Comment
740:Comment
714:Comment
676:Comment
659:WP:CRIC
655:Comment
633:WP:CRIN
629:Comment
611:Comment
568:WP:CRIC
557:Comment
469:WP:CRIN
445:Comment
380:Comment
337:Comment
276:Comment
255:Comment
223:Comment
197:WP:CRIN
165:WP refs
153:scholar
93:protect
88:history
778:Johnlp
473:WP:ATH
453:List A
205:WP:GNG
201:WP:ATH
137:Google
97:delete
54:JohnCD
585:Reply
536:Reply
490:Reply
180:JSTOR
141:books
125:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
875:talk
867:Keep
858:talk
837:talk
820:talk
803:talk
791:Keep
782:talk
774:Keep
765:talk
748:talk
731:talk
705:talk
693:Keep
684:talk
667:talk
646:talk
620:talk
606:Keep
597:talk
576:talk
548:talk
526:talk
481:talk
471:and
434:talk
409:talk
369:talk
345:talk
322:talk
300:talk
267:talk
238:talk
213:talk
173:FENS
147:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
50:keep
455:or
187:TWL
122:•
118:– (
877:)
860:)
852:.
839:)
822:)
805:)
784:)
767:)
750:)
733:)
725:.
718:81
707:)
686:)
669:)
648:)
622:)
599:)
578:)
550:)
528:)
483:)
451:,
436:)
428:?
411:)
403:.
371:)
363:!
347:)
324:)
314:.
302:)
292:.
269:)
257:-
244:)
240:•
215:)
207:.
167:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
52:.
873:(
856:(
835:(
818:(
801:(
780:(
763:(
746:(
729:(
703:(
682:(
665:(
644:(
618:(
595:(
574:(
546:(
524:(
479:(
432:(
407:(
367:(
343:(
320:(
298:(
265:(
236:(
211:(
191:)
183:·
177:·
169:·
162:·
156:·
150:·
144:·
139:(
131:(
128:)
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.