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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Jack | ^{talk page} 20:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of National Cricket League Twenty20 records[edit]

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because they fail the same criteria:

Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS. Straight crib from a specialist online source that adds no value to WP:CRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the first one but hold off on the others. Using the Test records as an example, it's a further breakdown of List of Test cricket records, with is a Featured List. I think the top-level country records have the potential to meet a FL criteria at some point in the future. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 15:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can see a rationale for deletion based on the lack of context prose in the articles - they have been created purely as lists of statistics which is certainly contrary to policies cited. But - with decent prose and careful culling of statistics (at present, there's just too much emphasis on stats for stats sake) some of these could be developed into half-decent articles/lists along the lines of English county articles. The first nominated article is more questionable (possible delete for me) and personally I would delete List of Bangladesh ODI cricket centurions - it will only grow into a massive list of stats. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close - these articles have very different scopes, and can't really be bundled together like this; more appropriately, the NCL T20 list should be one its own, as should the centurions list, while all three Bangladesh cricket records can be bundled. We're looking at very different lists, and it's unfair to bundle these together like this. Harrias ^talk 17:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing the nomination. I agree, the bundling here has gone awry. I'll close this and have a rethink about the articles individually. Some or all might be nominated again. Thanks, all, for pointing out the problems. Jack | ^{talk page} 20:43, 16 November 2016 (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.