Wiki How:Articles for deletion/CricketArchive

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 delete. Despite the numbers, most of the keep reasons have little policy-based reasoning, and consensus is that the sourcing just isn't enough to merit its own article. ansh 666 07:48, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CricketArchive

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

Cannot find any sources - even a sentence or two- about it; only numerous citations to it. Fails WP:NWEB unless sources can be found. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The website may be a source for some sport stats, but it doesn't make it notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:50, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Discuss 10:10, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move the article to draft instead of a delete as the website may have the potential to expand and grow further in the future. By then, there will be enough context and content with reliable sources. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 10:29, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The website has been there for 14 years; the article for 12. I really don't think there's much potential that the website will suddenly become notable; not in the 6 months till G13 kicks in. No point in wasting time in keeping a draft around. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:35, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I overlooked the fact that the website existed for so long. If so, then a delete. Ernestchuajiasheng (talk) 11:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One might also consider that Cricket Archive is the sole source for scores of WP articles on cricketers. This article is linked to hundreds of articles. If the website is a credible, reliable source for wikipedia, would it not be notable? Rhadow (talk) 17:39, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a reason why WP:N and WP:RS are not identical and that is because being Wikipedia-notable and being a reliable source are completely separate things. Jenks24 (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it meets WP:NMAG#4 "The periodical has had regular and significant usage as a citation in academic or scholarly works." power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:31, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you please verify that statement?2001:A61:370B:2E01:3C34:315C:D62:9854 (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a periodical so that essay doesn't really apply; there are no independent sources so according to that essay it still may be not suitable - all it says is the promotion that it is the "most comprehensive.." because there are no independent sources. Not only that, it's not used that much. Used for various articles and some books, but only a few of academic work. Those articles are usually not very significant either. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:21, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From NMAG: evidenced by citing reliable sources which write significant commentary about the periodical in relation to the specific criteria and It is possible for a periodical to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Wikipedia because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:45, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- After re-reading, the wording of NMAG states that it doesn't apply here. I disagree with that position. Cricketarchive is widely cited in Wikipedia articles and in research papers on cricket-related topics, and is updated regularly. That should be sufficient for it to be considered notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:36, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First and best website bringing together the many statistics from notable (first-class, List A) cricket matches in one place, therefore a significant resource for sport historians. It is also updated by significant authorities within the sports itself (national and local cricket clubs feed in directly) and by knowledgeable commentators. Johnlp (talk) 10:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I suggest to keep this article in English Wikipedia as it is used as one of the most reliable cricket websites used in WikiProject Cricket. I am shocked that this particular article has been nominated for deletion after 12 years since its creation. CricketArchive is a notable website and it is used as the primary source along with Cricinfo in creating most of the articles in Wikipedia. On the other hand, CricketArchive stores disability related cricket scorecards as well such as Deaf Cricket World Cup scorecards. So CricketArchive website deserves the article in English Wikipedia. Also the particular article is available in other language Wikipedias, so it should not be deleted in English Wikipedia. Abishe (talk) 07:08, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is possibly important. However there are no independent sources that talk about it, which is the criteria for WP:NWEB. Because of that, it is also quite promotional. We need at least one independent source to talk about it . Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC) Being used a source does not really confer notability, at least in the absence of even one independent source describing it. See also my reply to power above. It is not suitable as there are no independent sources. Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:49, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Being "quite promotional" is not ground for outright deletion. Once article is not G11'able, that means the promotion can be removed, even by you. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:30, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very important resource for cricket. Maybe we can't find sources online but surely they exists. Störm (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Galobtter: Now, I think article is in better shape with proper citations necessary to pass WP:NWEB. Maybe this is enough for closure? Störm (talk) 08:35, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I only see two lines in telegraph that in any way is a source. That's not enough for WP:NWEB - being used/mentioned in media sources doesn't mean that much. Galobtter (pingó mió) 08:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - If you are going to disregard mentions in national daily newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph and the Irish Times, that's going to set a very high bar for articles, and there would probably be thousands that would need to be deleted. JH (talk page) 10:23, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That is essentially one line + a quote from the website. That's nowhere near what we need. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC) I'm not setting the bar - that's WP:N. Thousands would actually need to be deleted, because there are thousands of non-notable articles among the 5 million that we have :) NWEB needs significant coverage - not just trivial description of the site or mere mentions. This is also to make the article not promotional and not rely solely or almost entirely on the website's own description of itself. Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:43, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With its important to Cricket in general and as recognized database. Also the the sources in the article do indeed establish notability and WP:NWEB is met. –Ammarpad (talk) 10:53, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree with the nominator. I can find lots and lots of example of the website being mentioned briefly in articles in all sorts of places. Many of these essentially boil down to things such as "According to cricketarchive.com, my go-to place for such trivia..." (Guardian). What i can't find - and, believe me, I've looked - is anything that deals with the site itself in an in-depth way. If such passing mentions are enough to meet NWEB then fair enough, but they don't appear to do enough to meet it as I read it right now.

I have no doubt that CricketArchive is useful, reasonably comprehensive etc... I've no doubt that it's a reasonable source to use for many things - and that's what many of the keep votes here seem to amount to. But I don't see even vaguely in-depth coverage that would persuade me that the website - as a website - would meet the relevant notability criteria, let along something such as WP:ORG or the GNG. It concerns me that a number of the keep votes here don't refer to the relevant notability criteria. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Many of the keep voters have said that sources about them exist, but none of them have actually produced any substantial sources about CA. As such, it seems the coverage of CA is insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:46, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources already in the article. Also for "insufficient to meet GNG" opinion; that's very subjective statement, how many sources are sufficient? –Ammarpad (talk) 10:28, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GNG is subjective but in this case there's not enough one source that has even a full paragraph on it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:33, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while it has a large number of trivial mentions in reliable sources, mostly to cite cricket statistics, there is no evidence of the website being the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Hack (talk) 13:37, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just because it's useful as a reliable source in Wikipedia articles doesn't mean the site is notable enough for an article. TripleRoryFan (talk) 04:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More material has been added, just in case anyone would want to review their vote in the light of it. Johnlp (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Having some important people does not give 'em notability; praise that it's database is "unmatched", would indicate that sources could be found, but they haven't been. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:50, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for informing the AfD - it's always really helpful when people do that! My gut response is that I'm still unconvinced that NWEB is met - specifically whether, "the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". Beyond non-trivial, if we were to take the ACS comments into account I have obvious issues with "multiple" and I'm concerned about the relationship between the ACS and CA - is there an "independent" relationship or are they, in many ways, the same core people involved? I'm really unsure about this and would welcome some clarity - certainly the ACS website seems to suggest that there is an informal working relationship between the two at least. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:27, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

brief summary of the nature of the content is trivial coverage - I would say it is trivial too. Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would tend to agree - the ACS stuff is the most detailed I've seen: the rest is certainly trivial; if there were multiple sources in the sort of detail the ACS has then I might be convinced, but I have real concerns about the independence of the source - both founder of CA are ACS members and have won ACS awards for example. Blue Square Thing (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If there are only two websites that claim comprehensive statistics on a sport, then one is best and the other second best. It makes neither of them reliable or notable, which is why no reviewer has written a comprehensive review. Lots of people use them, yes, and many quote from them, too. It doesn't make the subject website notable. Rhadow (talk) 12:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there is no consensus currently and I don't think there will be any. It will be better to close it as no consensus. Störm (talk) 15:44, 12 December 2017 (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.