Talk:1984–85 Four-Nations Cup

[Untitled]
This page was created last week and then arbitrarily moved to draft. There appears to be no logical or consistent way of moving it back out of draft than satisfying the arbitrary whim of an administrator who plainly has no understanding whatsoever, and who has claimed certain sources are not sources. I claim that this obstruction needs to be bypassed post haste. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Do not speedy delete
I don't see the rationale for speedy deletion. Please read WP:FIELD first before playing around with CSD tags. Better to contest via AfD. Speedy deletion articles look like this: Draft:CrazyLlama. This one is not. --&mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

, Greetings. Draft:1984–85 Four-Nations Cup page by creator has yet to provide necessary independent reliable source by creator. Creator recreate the page to circumvent WP:PROVEIT - see conversation here. The tag is for delete this page but work on the draft page on sources needed Thank you.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 16:44, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I get your point. 1984–85 Four-Nations Cup has enough reliable sources from my point of view. I looked at the links, and they provide sufficient verification for the content in the article. We're just not going to have that much online content about matches from the 1980s. For recent matches, yes, more sources might be needed, but I think this is enough for now. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 17:37, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * , I understand online sources might be limited for 80's and the it has been histmerged but at least get the book source right instead of link back to article; routine report of matches could not attribute the to notability of the article. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 17:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * All right, I'll leave this to the two of you and the rest of the other guys from WikiProject Cricket. Still, my point is that the article's flaws are not serious enough to actually warrant speedy deletion. Insufficient citations in a fairly good article should and can be fixed through constructive dialogue rather than CSD tags. Instead, try tagging for insufficient references / footnotes. &mdash; Stevey7788 (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * good day. It is no longer CSDed. pls note sources would be used to support content claimed but they might not able to contribute to notability of the subject - such as routine sport report of matches results from database sites such as soccerway, Sherdog, and etc because information could be provided by effected players/promoter/sport organizers which make the source not independent. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I do not quite understand some of the "telegraphese" used by here, but in creating this article I made reference to four sources: a book by Bill Frindall, the 1987 Wisden, ESPNCricinfo and Cricket Archive. Cassiopeia's response indicated he/she did not know what these sources were and indeed did not understand these sources had been linked to. Indeed I question why, who plainly has no understanding of cricket, should be allowed to unilaterally veto an article about a cricket tournament on Wikipedia. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Marplesmustgo Mate, I do understand cricket. I have explained to you on my talk page on each of the sources you provided. I guess you didnt really read the message.  CASSIOPEIA(talk) 23:29, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Yes, mate, I did read your message, and you are wrong. The fact you can't use archive.org to rustle up Cricket Archive doesn't make Cricket Archive an illegitimate source. All four sources were relevant and accessible and you, quite rightly, have been overruled in trying to delegitimise them. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:33, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * User:Marplesmustgo I didnt say the sources are illegitimate if you did read my message.<b style="font-family:Georgia;font-size:80%;color:#FA0"> CASSIOPEIA</b>(<b style="#0000FF">talk</b>) 23:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * If you didn't think the sources were illegitimate, you would not have sought to veto the article on the basis the sources were incomplete. Wisden, Cricinfo, Cricket Archive and a Bill Frindall book are all complete and readily available sources, and more than cover this four-match tournament. Marplesmustgo (talk) 23:49, 21 March 2019 (UTC)