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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. postdlf (talk) 12:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve[edit]

AfDs for this article:

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is classical WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT. Five numbers not enough. Other sports should have stuff like this also, like intenational soccer goals in stadiums. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck? Renominating less than a month after Keep decision on grounds of WP:SNOW, when there are more than 100 similar sporting achievement articles. What's going on here? Akld guy (talk) 23:09, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That will push us to the same loophole. I would look at it freshly. If other reviews really count, have a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium, which actually reached consensus. Also, the SNOW was because of the MULTIAFD complex. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:18, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and re-write to include the Test match five wicket hauls - the article says there have been 45 of them. That's more than enough given the history of the ground. I have concerns about the renomination as well, but will take each of the nominations as individual cases for now. I will, however, note my surprise that this article in particular has been nominated and my disappointment with the POINTY nature of the comment by the nominator in response to comments above. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

45 of them? Where? THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:45, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my mistake - it says there have been 67 Test cricket fifers. That would appear to be true as I've just learned how to use StatsGuru on CricInfo by the looks of it. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:47, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This seems to be a continuation of a WP:POINTY set of select nominations. The nom was recently blocked with part of their unblock request saying "At least impose cricket sanctions on me" (22 January 2019). This is off the back of this filibuster at WT:CRIC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Consider reading WP:NOTPOINTy. You seem to accuse me of that whenever I am starting discussions. I have given enough time to cool down and a proper discussion should be made to get rid of this loophole. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:39, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The stats are given context therefore passes WP:NOTSTATS and it has been shown that these can be improved to be featured lists one day. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator. Blue Square Thing stated that the list is more than 50, and I am trusting them. I overlooked this and it should kept according to my original intentions. Further discussions will take place at WT:CRICKET. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC

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.