Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stacey Muruthi (2nd nomination)

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.

Stacey Muruthi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Is this guy really notable? Coverage is

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 01:28, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Comment when this was nominated before, it was closed as Keep though no reason was given by the closer, so unclear exactly what the reasons were. The External Links that look like articles that may confer notability under
  WP:GNG are dead and I can't find them in Wayback Machine. Spike 'em (talk) 11:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've update 2 of the External Links based on the information provided below. I don't know how significant The Strait Times is, but there certainly seem to be multiple articles which mention Muruthi in detail, so he passes

WP:GNG for me. Accordingly, I've changed this from Comment to Keep. Spike 'em (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete it is high time we put these crazy cricket bios in check. We need a much higher threshold for notability in cricket.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Tend towards delete - if enough could be found to come close to meeting GNG then I'd be perfectly happy to retain this, but I think it's difficult to justify that level of coverage just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'll admit I know nothing about cricket, but he doesn't seem to meet the standards set for notability. Playing any sport for 45 years is worth of tip of the cap, but doesn't make him notable. Don't see the coverage needed to meet the GNG.Sandals1 (talk) 19:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clearly notable per coverage, and sources. WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Fails
  WP:CRIN. MarkH21 (talk) 07:58, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete on account of subject failing
  WP:NCRIC. -The Gnome (talk) 13:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep. I don't know if anyone who has commented here so far has done a
  WP:BEFORE search (if they have they haven't made it clear), but I found several articles, e.g. Straits Times: "Stacey Muruthi, who made his debut for the national team at the age of 16 and went on to play for the country for 32 years until 2001", "He's one of Singapore cricket's favourite sons. But in a few years' time, national cricketer Stacey Muruthi could be given another tag as one of the founding fathers of the future national senior team", Singapore Star: "Singapore’s captain Stacey Muruthi shared the limelight with Malaysia’s captain Suresh Menon to lift the Grimberg trophy.", so not just someone who played cricket for a long time, but someone who played for the Singapore national team for 32 years, some of that time as captain, which even for a relatively minor cricketing nation, together with the national newspaper sources, suggests he is notable enough for inclusion. --Michig (talk) 20:03, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. These sources and coverage are
  WP:CRIN. Minor matches at amateur level aren't deemed notable. You might take part in the donkey derby for 32 years, but it doesn't make you notable. StickyWicket (talk) 21:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think they go beyond routine coverage, and he played in the country's national team, and you're comparing that with a donkey derby? --Michig (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, when those matches are minor and quite clearly fall out of the criteria of CRIN. Besides that, it's a useless article that tells us virtually nothing encyclopedic. StickyWicket (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is poor, this is something that can be dealt with through editing. --Michig (talk) 16:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't understand why you say he fails
  WP:GNG. RebeccaGreen (talk) 22:51, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment @RebeccaGreen:, you've misunderstood WP:CRIN. He never appeared in a final of the ICC Trophy (Singapore have never reached one). Prior to 2005 matches did not carry List A status and were classified as minor matches. The inclusion for cricketers having played in a final prior to 2005 was the match being the decider for who would qualify for the world cup. So the games he played in are most definitely not covered by WP:CRIN (I helped come with the criteria). You won't find any other players who appeared at any of those ICC Trophy competitions outside of the finals. This is why Category:Israeli cricketers, or Category:Gibraltarian cricketers are empty - because despite playing at most ICC Trophy's, the matches were not notable. Besides that the article is a lot of "oh he's this and he's that". StickyWicket (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case, keep due to meeting
  WP:GNG because of the significant coverage of him as a player and captain at national level in Singapore. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Those who considered
  WP:GNG and thought he did not meet it might like to look at NewspaperSG [1]. Pinging Blue Square Thing and Sandals1. RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I can't read most of those articles - it won't let me unless I'm at a particular library. I'll note initially that some are adverts, sore summaries etc... Of the summaries I scanned through and the few articles I could read, some looked tangental at best and I couldn't see anything that really falls under SIGCOV - which is the same situation when I looked at other articles in The Straits Times - lots of passing references but nothing that I would consider to have been significant. The same is, I'm afraid, true of the three links above as far as I can tell. The more significant coverage might be there. I think it can be for cricketers who don't qualify in terms of the sorts of matches they've played (and, for what it's worth, I think there are plenty of examples where cricketers who have played matches at the sort of level we usually look at don't qualify under the GNG). But I can't find it. I've certainly seen biographies with more significant coverage deleted.

All of which is very frustrating, but I'm really not sure whether or not we have someone here that passes the GNG. If there's a way to write the article in such a way as to show that then that'd be great, but until then I think I still tend towards delete. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd agree that he does not meet CRIN, but does pass GNG. A conversation for another time and place, but is there any reason why Div 6 of the World Cricket League since 2007 is presumed notable (this division features the 23rd - 28th best non-ODI teams), but the early ICC Trophies are not (featuring the top 16 such teams)? Spike 'em (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quote directly from
  WP:CRIN
  . Subject must have

1. appeared as a player in at least one cricket match that is judged by a substantial secondary source to have been played at the highest international or domestic level;

2. appeared prior to 2005 as a player in an ICC Trophy final,

3. appeared since 2005 in at least one match in any of the ICC World Cup Qualifier, Women's Cricket World Cup Qualifier, ICC World Twenty20 Qualifier and ICC Women's World Twenty20 Qualifier competitions;

4.appeared as a player in at least one World Cricket League match of Division Six status or above; or

5. appeared as a player for an Associate team in a Twenty20 International match after 1 July 2018 in either a World T20, Global Qualifier, or Regional Final. -The Gnome (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, notability for sportspeople are often funny,
  WP:GNG (as the "keeper" say but the "deleters" deny), anyway, this is why i don't get involved in too many sportspeople afds as they can be quite confusing:) Coolabahapple (talk) 10:56, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The highest domestic level in modern cricket is seen as being first-class / List A cricket, which is a status now conferred upon competitions by the ICC. The league in Singapore has not attained this status. He has played in games for Singapore that if they happened today would qualify him, but the 2005 cutoff rules them out. Spike 'em (talk) 11:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Spike 'em:: One of the problems is that that's not what CRIN says. It's how most people tend to interpret it, but going purely on how it's actually written, someone playing in a national league of any kind could be argued to meet the criteria. It obviously needs rewriting, but, well, I've given up even trying to do that.

• Leaning to Keep for this one. While they may fail WP:NCRIC, I think other factors need to be looked at, including their lengthy career and the fact they've captained the national side too. The article demonstrates this notability at the moment. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the reasons Lugnuts gives. There are hundreds of non-notable cricketer bios which I agree should not be kept, but this isn't one of them. Mccapra (talk) 12:10, 25 January 2019 (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.