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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of fastest to reach multiples of 1000 runs in ODI cricket[edit]

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

Delete. A list like this will not be maintained long-term and is already out of date. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Adds no value at all and if we had a WP:SOWHAT? it would fail that too. Waste of space. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are the same except for the different forms of cricket:

Same reasons apply. Jack | ^{talk page} 14:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all important milestones are often kept in various sports on wikipedia such as 3,000 hit club, List of men's association football players with 500 or more goals, List of NHL players with 1000 assists etc. It seems rough to suggest that cricket shouldn't also be able to mark milestones, and the above rationale for delete is not a good policy reason as per WP:OUTDATED. JMWt (talk) 16:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These aren't particularly important milestones, and Wikipedia doesn't need to be a mirror of Cricinfo and CricketArchive. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:02, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOSTATS. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on balance - there needs to be a line drawn somewhere regarding purely statistical articles. Per the policies cited by others I don't think this reaches the line. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of these are particularly celebrated achievements in cricket. Leave it to the specialist sites, not an encyclopedia. Delete. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:31, 3 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.