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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 05:03, 24 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lancaster Park[edit]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lancaster Park (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)

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) 19:33, 17 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Withdrawn by nominator.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) 18:04, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 22:45, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment this page may be instructive Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:48, 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. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 22:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough, let each page stand or fall on its own merit. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 23:11, 17 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. This information is already available through the external link to the ESPNCricinfo StatsGuru. Although 49 instances of 5WI were recorded, the article mentions just five. Ajf773 (talk) 02:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A discussion was started on WT:CRIC about these lists, but fell away when the nominator was blocked. I think that is a better forum to discuss what criteria should be used to keep / delete these lists, rather than starting individual AfDs. Spike 'em (talk) 09:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I assume you referred to this one. It didn't fell because I was blocked, no consensus was reached anyways. It's quite difficult to discuss there. Members accused me of WP:POINT and claimed that "AFD "episode 2"" and I quote one of them, "there was no good reason shown at the AFD to delete and there's absolutely no good reason to "merge by country".". Most of them were furious because I did MULTIAFD. Some suggested to AFD individually instead of MULTIAFD, and here am I. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and complete the list. There are absolutely tonnes (like, >50) of Test match five wicket hauls but whoever decided to create the article was, frankly, too lazy to bother with them. If no-one's willing to add them then by all means redirect to the ground where a prose summary might be written. A note might be placed on the article creator's talk page suggesting that they might want to actually bother to do things properly in future - this is not the only case lists have been created partially. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:31, 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) 10:01, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

Notability is not determined by content. For context, the lead only summarizes the stats. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Spike and BST. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. Can I also raise an objection to the fact that separate nominations were created for List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Khan Shaheb Osman Ali Stadium, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Mahinda Rajapaksa International Stadium, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sheikh Abu Naser Stadium, List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Punjab Cricket Association IS Bindra Stadium and List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Lancaster Park? I understand that each nomination might result in a different outcome, but these articles are all related, and if the nominator has an issue with all of them, they should have been nominated together. – PeeJay 19:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness to the nominator they were dragged over the coals for a collective nomination, his could be seen (with a bit of imagination) as a logical next step. However, I hope they one day find a less taxing way to address their problem with these pages. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)).[reply]
    • Ideally, I would suggest they should have tested the water by nominating just one of the smaller ones first and then gone for a bulk nomination once they found out what the community's general feeling was. – PeeJay 21:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dushan Jugum: There is a huge difference between nominating all 100+ articles of this sort to make a point, and doing a multi AfD for the current batch under consideration.
      • PeeJay2K3: To be fair to IW, there is a precedent to delete some of these articles, which started this all off. Spike 'em (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I've updated the article with the 46 Test match fwh on the ground and dealt with some of the other issues been discussed. This could now use closing. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2019 (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.