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. This has been a long running discussion - over five weeks now, though not many contributors, and little clear evidence of consensus. There are six !votes for delete, mostly citing guidelines or policies such as NLIST, NOTSTATS, FANCRUFT. There are seven !votes for keep, though the reasons vary. Three are in the form of "I like it", so hold little weight. Three point to the existence of FL as a reason to keep, though that in itself is not a convincing argument, and tends to fall in the "I like it camp". But one keep !vote, that of Deus et lex, directly challenges the assumptions of the delete !voters that the NOTSTAT policy cited is actually relevant to the articles listed. Though it is one vote, it is very convincing rationale. The arguments citing previous AfDs are not that useful as some article-lists were kept, while others were deleted. Each AfD should be taken on its own merits. The deciding argument that is left is if the lists meet WP:NLIST. And I note that the most recent discussions focus on this aspect. NLIST requires that the list topic be "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" - and it is emphasised that individual items on the list do not need formal citing for meeting the requirements as long as there is evidence from reliable sources that the set criteria itself has been defined by reliable sources. There is an argument that the lists do not meet this criteria, and a counter argument that the list do meet the criteria. On being asked to provide evidence that the lists are appropriately cited, there was response that there would be books that did provide such evidence. But the evidence itself was not provided. I checked the sourcing in some articles and agree with the argument that evidence has not been provided that reliable sources have discussed the criteria of five wickets taken in one innings on a particular ground. There are stats and occasional articles which provide evidence that five wickets were taken on a particular ground, but none of the ones I checked discussed that as a defining set, such as "this is the seventh time that there has been a five wicket haul on this ground". Given that there were two !votes and a solid argument put forward for the lists not meeting WP:NLIST, and that this argument was not adequately met by those wishing to keep, this is a delete decision. However, as the subject of merging the information into existing articles was proposed and not objected to, I will temporarily userfy any article on request to allow the contents to be merged into an appropriate article. SilkTork (talk) 11:52, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Irish cricket grounds[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

In continuation of previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook where we developed a clear consensus that such lists are not required as they fail WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 13:12, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Thanks. Störm (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Procedurally I'd like to see List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park (a featured list) and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lord's added to this list. If we agree to delete these lists then I think we need to agree to delete the featured ones and the Lord's one - unless someone can make a case for Lord's as an exception (which I think is doable fwiw). I've edited all of these lists extensively but have no great attachment either way to them - but if we're going to call these non-notable then we need to call all of them non-notable or make a decision as to where the notability lies.

I'd also point to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve from 2019 and the related discussions here, here and here - all on the same archive page confusingly. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:59, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't understand the need to delete these pages. Although I have created a few of these pages and if deleted won't work on them again. But since a separate page for centuries is there I don't understand the logic to delete these. Ankurc.17 (talk) 04:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. per previous AfD outcome for the lists of centuries and WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTIINFO WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:FANCRUFT. With regards to the featured lists, we should leave those until after this discussion to establish whether we have a clear precedent to keep/remove. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we deal with those first? If those articles - particularly McLean Park - can become a featured list then any of these can. In fact, many are in a very similar state. Don't be scared of including a featured list first - if the idea of these lists isn't notable then the featured lists aren't notable either. Lord's you can argue about separately, I agree, because of the nature of the ground. There may be other grounds where this applies - SCG, MCG etc... - but not McLean. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. per previous AfDs. I don't think "by ground" is a meaningful categorisation. "by player" makes a lot more sense. I can tell you have many Test centuries Don Bradman got, but how many centuries there have been as MCG, I wouldn't have a clue. No one's interested. Nigej (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as discussions on previous proposals have mentioned, the fact that there have been featured lists in this group of articles suggests that they actually don't fail the guidelines and are within Wikipedia's criteria, given that they wouldn't have been accepted as featured lists otherwise. I'd admit that they need work, but I don't think that merits deletion of them all. Turnagra (talk) 05:04, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment pinging previous participants @Tsistunagiska:, @Churot:, @Kemalcan:, @Theleekycauldron:, @Spiderone:, @NavjotSR:, @Joalhe1997: for their view. Störm (talk) 08:43, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing has basically said the same thing as I said on a previous AfD page, where do we draw the line on notability? There probably needs to be a consensus on whether there's a way we can keep and work on these lists to fall in line with the WPs or whether we should delete all of these types of lists, as I don't understand why some should stay and some should go. Also going to ping in Lugnuts who works a lot on WP:Cricket pages. Joalhe1997 (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. The fact that a similar, as BST highlights, is a Featured List, gives hope that ALL of these lists could become FL too. All of the articles I've got to FL status are in the same ballpark (see top of my userpage), so I'd support a Keep for these, as they all have WP:POTENTIAL. Worst case is that if someone wants to work on a specific list, they can get it restored (to their userspace) via WP:REFUND and work on polishing it up to a FL standard. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Due to mixed consideration at the moment, (currently) somewhat focusing on whether the existence of certain exceptions undermines the general reasoning proposed in the test case.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 19:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should formally say that I would suggest keep for now, on the grounds that some of these lists are pretty close to the same standard as featured lists. I would have no problem at all if one of the FL were put forward for deletion to determine whether or not we should consider these articles to be suitable in terms of notability or not. I'd be happy to treat Lord's, the MCG and SCG as cases separate beyond that, but I think we'd be better off trying to decide if we consider any other articles in this series to be notable or not first.

There's a little too much range in the bundle for me to feel confident of any choice to delete as well - there are centuries articles and ones that should clearly be merged (Green Park, for example) as well as lists by ground and lists by country. For me that's rather too many things to try to decide on in one bundle if I'm honest. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 20:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No point in deleting these articles / lists. One could debate them at an aggregate (across all sports, not just cricket and bowling), but, I do not see an issue in keeping. Value from these articles is nett positive, even if the magnitude is limited. Keep. Ktin (talk) 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:21, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:23, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:25, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Consistent with the previous AFDs, these are not meaningful ways to categorize such statistics. Just because similar articles are FL does not give immunity to these, nor do even the FLs have any sort of immunity. The FLC process tends to be based on the article's quality as it appears and is not necessarily a statement that the topic's notability or encyclopedic-ness overrides other discussions. Reywas92^Talk 22:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - for a number of reasons: 1. the previous AfD does not establish some sort of precedent for every page - I note these discussions have been dominated by users such as Störm and Ajf773 who take particularly strong views (and in my view often incorrect, if you read previous AfDs) on the use of cricket statistics in articles, and I note the previous discussion wasn't properly shared with relevant deletion-discussion lists (particularly country-related ones) which would enable a broader range of users to have input (like this AfD does). It appears that a view has been taken that the individual AfD should be used as some sort of RfC for whether these types of statistics are notable or not - that isn't the case and it doesn't accord with Wikipedia policy on what AfDs are to be used for, there should be a RfC or broader discussion on the relevant WikiProject where proper consensus and consultation is done if that is to be the case; 2. The pages are NOT a violation of WP:NOTSTATS - that requires excessive lists of indiscriminate statistics, but 5 wicket hauls and centuries at particular grounds are, in many cases, things that have been covered by other independent sources, so they're not indiscriminate (also taking into account lists of centuries and 5-wicket hauls are fairly limited), and they're not excessive - the argument that they are just Cricinfo mirrors is simply not correct (and the Featured List articles metioned above prove that point); 3. The point about the articles being able to be improved is a valid and relevant point; 4. Even if (contrary to everything I have already said) there is a consensus that stand-alone articles shouldn't exist, none of the arguments put by the proponents of deletion show that it's not inappropriate to merge to the relevant cricket ground etc. articles that would override Wikipedia policy on alternatives to deletion - in the context of articles that are largely prose text, statistics about 5-wicket hauls and centuries (the summary achievements in a match for a bowler and batter respectively) are not inappropriate or indiscriminate and also don't violate WP:NOTSTATS. The mass nomination here, while in good faith and to avoid the mess of recent AfDs on individual batsmen and bowler centuries and 5-wicket hauls, doesn't give users the proper ability to analyse each article to determine the appropriateness of another option before deletion is able to be considered. All of the above show that these should be kept; if there are inappropriate entries in the above list, reasons should be put forward specifically on those pages to show why they are inappropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 02:24, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - there is something about cricket and cricket fans that leads to this kind of "cruft". I do not think any other sports goes to this level of detail. --Bduke (talk) 07:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - cruft is only an essay, it is not policy, and is not a reason for deletion. Cricket statistics are in many instances covered by multiple independent reliable sources. This can't just be a delete all, the nominators need to show why it is inappropriate to not keep or merge. Deus et lex (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep People will find this valuable. Nexus000 (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ADDSVALUE is not a real argument for a deletion discussion. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest you encourage full discussions rather than just make remarks about others' comments. Nexus might have a valid reason for making that argument? Deus et lex (talk) 07:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I invite him/her to elaborate more. Simple comments like that aren't useful in deciding on an outcome. Ajf773 (talk) 08:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The keep arguments are all very week and classic arguments to avoid but I don’t think we should delete all many articles without a stronger consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:58, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa there. My argument here is that the list of articles presented is far too diverse to be able to come to a conclusion here. There's nothing wrong with that argument. As I've argued above, this should probably be a keep and then I'd be very happy to see a proper debate on List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park. If we can reach a consensus there that articles of that type are not notable, then we can move on from that. I've also listed three previous discussions where articles such as this were discussed and a consensus was reached that they are notable. I'm not sure that's a "weak" argument and one that could be considered one to avoid. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with @Blue Square Thing: here, @Spartaz: -- I think it's unfair to just write off some pretty valid comments made by users here and call them "weak", which have been made by reference to Wikipedia policy (including that a mass deletion doesn't take into account the diversity of articles, the fact that the articles don't in fact violate WP:NOTSTATS (despite the often-repeated claim that they do - and this has been accepted and has been the consensus of other users and closers in other AfDs), and the existence of appropriate merge or redirect targets for some of these articles (WP:ATD). I've also explained elsewhere that for some of these types of articles (lists of five-wicket hauls and centuries) have been the subject of independent coverage outside of Cricinfo. I don't have the time to research individual articles to find further sources given the large number up for AfD here but it's worth noting that. I think at best you can say there isn't consensus to delete at present. Deus et lex (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Closer should also note that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook bundle and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Dubai International Cricket Stadium bundle were deleted despite having featured lists like List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium, List of international cricket centuries at Bellerive Oval and others and no one objected previously. Störm (talk) 13:59, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, similar lists for players are regularly deleted, redirected, or merged despite having featured lists. If we have featured lists that doesn't mean we can't delete other lists as these featured lists were promoted by specific mindset of people (I have no doubt that if we again discuss these lists will be demoted) who consider ESPNCricinfo and CricketArchive as secondary sources which they are not (they are database websites). Secondly, lists should meet WP:NLIST and their table are full of WP:NOTSTATS so aren't any useful. Störm (talk) 14:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I should be clear that: a) the bundle here is mainly five-wicket hauls, not centuries - similar, but different; b) I've changed my mind and would now make the same points about centuries. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Störm:, I've already raised why you can't treat some of the other discussions as precedent, when (for example) some of them weren't brought to the attention of appropriate WikiProject Deletion Sorting lists, and the fact that they don't set a "precedent" as such - if you want to do that, the appropriate course is an RfC. Deus et lex (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all: Per the previous AFDs, this is an arbitrary way to group, not supported by RS, and does not meet LISTN. The keep comments do not address guidelines that have been mentioned, and provide no sources or guidelines that support their position. // Timothy :: talk 10:42, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment TimothyBlue, have you even read the lengthy replies that @Blue Square Thing: and I have raised? The articles are already sourced externally so that isn't true. Grouping centuries or five-wicket hauls at particular grounds is not "arbitrary" and has been covered in external sources in many cases - cricket statistics frequently reference centuries and five-wicket hauls. I'm not sure how they violate WP:LISTN, but you can't just assert it, you need to argue why. There are plenty of good, policy-based arguments about why the mass deletion of these articles is inappropriate. At worst they should be merged or redirected, because you're required to show that isn't inappropriate BEFORE deleting. No one has done that. The prior AfDs are NOT a precedent and should not be used as a quasi-RfC. These articles must be considered on their own merits, and as a group it is inappropriate to delete them. If there's a problem with a particular one then raise it, othewise it's just vague reasons given for deletion of all of them, and that's not the right outcome. Deus et lex (talk) 10:54, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Deus et lex Please pick any article of your choice (in order to prove) and show reliable secondary sources where they discuss the centuries/fifers as a group (I have searched for all of them and they all fail WP:LISTN). But, if you can't, then don't brag about it as keep voters arguments don't make sense (Spartaz was right what they said). Störm (talk) 16:57, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Störm - did you check largely offline sources such as Wisden? Books featuring the history of particular cricket grounds that discuss centuries or 5-fors made at those grounds? Including for the Featured Articles? And even if you're right, none of that means a merge or a redirect isn't appropriate. There are some entirely valid arguments for keeping these articles that are grounded in Wikipedia policy, as Blue Square Thing and I have mentioned. The mass nomination should not have been made. It's trying to set an RfC-like argument, it doesn't give editors the proper opportunity to look up what sources might be available, and doesn't distinguish properly between the particular articles. I'm not "bragging", just trying to show up the ill-thought out reasons for deletion by editors who are obsessed with removing cricket statistic articles. Deus et lex (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2021 (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.