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. There is no support for deletion besides the nom. One user supports a merger. Consensus is against deletion. This should not preclude a separate merge proposal. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of cricketers by number of international five-wicket hauls[edit]

List of cricketers by number of international five-wicket hauls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Delete per WP:LISTN, WP:LISTCRUFT. No coverage about them as a group.

Helpful content can be smerged with the main article, five-wicket haul, which is comparatively small in size. Störm (talk) 17:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a well-designed list, with a clear set of inclusion criteria. It's more than just a stats dump, with plenty of prose, and coverage of both men's and women's cricket. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:10, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:NLIST which is the criterea for judging lists. Lists can only be made (except nav lists) if they have recieved coverage in multiple WP:RS as a group which this list fails. Störm (talk) 13:20, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, considering so many similar articles (e.g. List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Muttiah Muralitharan are featured lists. This strikes me as an occasion when WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS makes sense. StAnselm (talk) 19:43, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

StAnselm Murali list is about an individual who was the highest wicket-taker in test cricket so it is easy to find articles/books that discuss his fifers as a group, but not in this case. Störm (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this is a well-defined list, with plenty of supporting prose. It is neither trivial nor indiscriminate, so no idea why LISTCRUFT is being quoted. Spike 'em (talk) 20:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please elaborate how this meets WP:NLIST. Please provide sources where this was discussed as a group as I failed to find any. Störm (talk) 13:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Lugnuts and StAnselm. extra999 (talk) 21:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per above. A well detailed list. Pilean (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge selectively to five-wicket haul. Topic can be easily accommodated within the main article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Lugnuts. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:27, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I am still not convinced that how this list meets WP:LISTN, the guidline says "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." The above comments don't reflect the current WP policy on such lists. Closing admin, please close this AfD in the light of WP:LISTN. Störm (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

NLIST actually says One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. It does not state that the topic has to be discussed as a group for it to be kept. Spike 'em (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spike 'em is again misquotating and want to cherrypick. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists. Grouping is necessary for stand-alone list except when we create a list for navigational purposes. Pilean, CreativeNorth, Extra999, Lugnuts if they want to re-consider. Störm (talk) 11:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please either withdraw that accusation or show me exactly what I am misquoting. I have lifted those quotes straight from NLIST (with some emphasis added). Spike 'em (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And per WP:LISTPURP, it does not have to be a navigational list: Information:The list may be a valuable information source. This is particularly the case for a structured list.

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.