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 no consensus. Seems awfully close to a narrow consensus to delete by my reckoning -- but two previous administrators have decided that there was insufficient consensus to close and chose to relist. The discussion hasn't really moved on from there. A Traintalk 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of New Zealand Test cricket victories[edit]

List of New Zealand Test cricket victories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A long list of cruft that fails WP:GNG. Having a list of wins for any sporting team is not notable in itself. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton | Talk 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Reply to Shudde, above) NOTSTATS does not say that those are the only things that violate the policy. In this case, the policy violation is explained in the words "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia", which refers you to "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cricket is very much a game of stats. Almost all our featured lists are collections of stats (see Wikipedia:Featured lists#cricket. This is a relatively poor article, but that is not a reason for deletion. Also no one is currently saying the article should stay as it is. The concept of a list of tests is notable however, especially if it is considered a split from a countries history (I think it is notable in its own right, but am currently pushing for a much lower bar). I think Shuddes point is that this is more valid as a topic than many of the cricket lists currently accepted. AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah sorry I that doesn't explain it at all. So being verifiable and true doesn't mean it can't be deleted? Okay, but that doesn't explain why this list should be does it? As for the second quote, how is this excessive detail compared to the many other cricket-related lists on the project? I don't understand how this is different or even worse. Editors can't just quote WP:NOTSTATS whenever they don't like a list and expect others to be convinced. Most complaints about this list stem from it's quality and it's current state, but that is not the same as notability. Let us focus on the later and leave the former until later can we? -- Shudde talk 17:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Do NOT delete This is a list of extremely notable events in NZ cricket history. Every NZ test victory makes the front page of the sports section of every metropolitan newspaper. If the victory was over a quality team such as Australia or England that makes the front page of every metropolitan newspaper in NZ.

There are many articles about cricket on Wikipedia with little or no "notability" such as:

This is not just a list of stats. The following articles are far more a list of statistics than a "List of New Zealand Test cricket victories" and of much less notable events:

The 6 other far less notable articles I have listed should not be deleted either.

The "List of New Zealand Test cricket victories" article certainly needs to be cleaned up/prettied up though.

  • And they're other stuff exists argument seems to be aimed solely at articles I've created or expanded. Wickets on debut is a rare stat, whereas a complete list of every match won is unnecessary. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph2302 The existence and safety of these and other articles highlights the impression that this nomination is more on quality than nobility. If I was so inclined I could nominate many of those articles with vague WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS arguments. [{WP:GNG]] is hard to apply to lists as they are almost always forks (or potential forks) from notable articles. With deletion (apart from a few occasions) you need to judge the topic on its potential, not its current standard. AIRcorn (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:31, 2 May 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.
More