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 redirect to Rahul Dravid#Achievements and awards. And selectively merge anything relevant. Consensus is to not keep this, with a split between delete and merge. Sandstein 19:50, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and achievements of Rahul Dravid[edit]

List of awards and achievements of Rahul Dravid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Statscruft overload, most of the key achievements are summarised already on his BLP article. Nomination similar to that for Ricky Ponting Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:18, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS; article consisting mostly of indiscriminate trivia, anything significant should already be included in the main article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 22:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:07, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I have nothing for this list specifically, I have something against these AfDs. Before we proceed any further with this AfD, I would want to point at these below listings, and get a consensus on the same action that needs to be undertaken at all of these lists, if we are recommending a delete on one, it should permeate all of these lists. Ktin (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non exhaustive list below

• I think discussing each article on its individual merits is where we should be heading. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Lots of fancruft, not to mention unsourced sections. Little value in most of this trivia. The really important bits can be covered in his main article. The above lists are classic WP:OTHERSTUFF examples too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Rahul Dravid#Achievements_and_awards. The article in general is pretty well sourced with 83 sources and probably due to existence of this article, the main article Rahul Dravid was not significantly developed with theses facts. I believe something on the lines of Virender Sehwag#Records & MS Dhoni#International records can be developed from this article and its sourcing. Roller26 (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As per Ktin's comment, the only similar article of a top Indian cricket player that I could find was Achievements of Sachin Tendulkar. If there is consensus we can bundle up that article with this AfD. Roller26 (talk) 09:50, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I believe it should be nominated as well. My preference would be an individual AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 10:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ajf773, If you are working this AfD -- you should work all the articles in the list that I have provided as an aggregate. Else, this would be selective white-washing. Try this with a List of career achievements by Michael Jordan or List of career achievements by Shaquille O'Neal and we will know the commitment. Ktin (talk) 10:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing stopping you from listing those yourself. Should be a slam-dunk delete (see what I did there...) as they are both classic examples of WP:NOTSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:16, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, I wouldn't list any of them because I believe that each and every one of them have a reason to exist within en.wiki. "List of awards and achievements of ..." is a standard structuring framework for large biographies and absolutely deserves to exist in en.wiki.

If we are deleting it for one article on the grounds that it does not belong here, the structuring framework itself has to be reconsidered, and not just the AfD. Ktin (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this one as fancruft, same as the other previous AfDs mentioned on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Ricky Ponting's achievements and statistics which have been deleted previously. All the ones mentioned (apart from Sachin) don't seem to be cricketers, so would be wrong to equate them to this AFD, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:42, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Joseph2302, May I ask why the distinction from all the other sportspersons? Ktin (talk) 17:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  because trying to bloat this AFD by talking about 100 other articles is the very definition of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There have been multiple cricket AFDs about this, and the cricket project has demonstrated that these cricket stats lists aren't acceptable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Rahul Dravid#Achievements_and_awards. While this appears fancruft, it belongs with the Rahul Dravid article. -- Whiteguru (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Mostly stats. Not what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. Main article is sufficient. Nigej (talk) 12:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, may I ask why the distinction from all the other sportspersons? Ktin (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Coming from WP:GOLF we have List of career achievements by Jack Nicklaus and List of career achievements by Tiger Woods and that's it. 2 mega stars. List of career achievements by Russell Westbrook - who? utter nonsense. I'd vote delete for that one too. Anyway the WP:Other stuff exists argument is discouraged. Nigej (talk) 17:37, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, Appreciate your response. It is easy to call this WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. To be clear, I am not making an argument that other stuff exists. I am making a case that this (i.e. List of awards and achievements) is a structuring construct that is available (and encouraged) for large biographies, and we should not be AfDing individual articles but going and making a case that this structuring article needs to be removed, if thats what we are saying.

  This whole -- we need it for Michael Jordan, but do not need it for Kobe Bryant approach does not work. Ktin (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I think you're wrong there. It's the nature of AfDs that we have to make judgements about notability, generally about the person but in this case about the need to have a second highly detailed statistical article. There has to be some line, otherwise we'd have two articles on all cricketers. Nigej (talk) 17:47, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, Now we are talking -- is this AFD about notability? Until now that has not been mentioned. Can you confirm that this AfD is about notability? And, pardon my saying -- until now, all the arguments have been lazy ones about 'fancruft' or 'fancraft' or WP:NOTSTATS. Ktin (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  See WP:N "On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article." See WP:AfD "Articles for deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted." I'm assuming from these quotes that all AfDs are about "notability"Nigej (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, I have nothing against this AfD if this AfD was structured as one that was proposed because the article was not "notable". Until you brought it up a moment ago, no one had even attempted to make a case for this AfD based on lack of notability. There are other lazy arguments being peddled like fancruft, fancraft etc.

  Now, pray, tell me why this article is not notable. Ktin (talk) 18:06, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Because, in my view, it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources. As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Nigej (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, same as my point to the other editor below. WP:BEBOLD and cull the segments that need to be culled. An AfD is an expensive process to enforce quality improvements, and this should be done through our regular editorial feedback. Ktin (talk) 18:21, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Now you're twisting the argument. An AfD is where we express views. I stick to my initial "Not what we're looking for in an encyclopedia. Main article is sufficient." Nigej (talk) 18:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, and we are back to square one. Anyways not a productive conversation. Not a productive AfD. Ktin (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No. Just challenging people's honestly-held views is not generally a productive way forward. And neither is the desire to always have the last word. Nigej (talk) 18:33, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Nigej, absolutely no desire to have the last word. Please take it. Notwithstanding all of this, I remain appreciative of your time, though not of this ill conceived AfD. Have a good rest of your day. Ktin (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not a single person including the nominator has been able to explain why this article needs to be deleted, other than pointing to another AfD for Ricky Ponting, which btw should be stopped as well. Using terms like 'fancruft' or 'funcruft' are not productive to the conversation. "List of awards and achievements of ..." is a standard structuring framework for large biographies here at en.wiki, and is used for sportspersons, entertainers, and multiple other categories. If a single AfD is being pursued in this ad-hoc manner, the structuring framework itself needs to be done away with, and not an ad-hoc AfD of the kind that is being seen here. Ktin (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To expand on my earlier !vote (which you seem to have overlooked) if you take the time to go through this list, it fails WP:NOTSTATS badly with endless indiscriminate, unexplained and context-free snippets of information, much of which is unsourced. Also, many of the "records" are not records at all but "one of the top x" bites of trivia. Cut all the problem content away and almost everything that is left is already included in the main article. A clear and obvious deletion candidate. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:56, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather, WP:BEBOLD and cull out the trivia, if that's what you want to do. AfD is an expensive process to go down along, when article improvements can be enabled by simpler edits. Ktin (talk) 18:02, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if this were a notable standalone subject (and no-one has offered and argument that it is), it's so bad that WP:TNT would be the best option. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:20, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather, pardon my saying, but that seems an excuse to not be WP:BOLD. Ktin (talk) 18:29, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe time to stop WP:BLUDGEONing? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wjemather, makes it two of us, doesn't it?

Anyways, as I mentioned to the other editor, notwithstanding all of this, I remain appreciative of your time, though not of this ill conceived AfD. Have a good rest of your day. Ktin (talk) 18:52, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further, lists such as these are almost always the result of a WP:SPLIT with notability inherited from the main subject. That would be the case here, but it doesn't appear to have been a formal split, so it's more of a WP:FORK with extra indiscriminate cruft. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge only the essential information to Rahul Dravid, per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 02:44, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Partial merge of anything that's remotely actually notable to the main article - preferably as actual prose in an actual article which attempts to actually summarise things properly. Then redirect and keep a watch on the base article which is an obviously unnecessary fork. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:06, 26 September 2020 (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.