Deletion of Stacey Muruthi

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 ricket
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights (WP:C)

Comment: Limiting player articles to those outlined in  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) "  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  is the projects talk page, in a sport heaped in tradition, yes I stick to the letter with it
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:CRIN)

Comment: You don't get to decide that. See 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:CLOSEAFD)