- 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Vernon Philander[edit]
- List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Vernon Philander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NLIST which says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources".
Also, note that there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 07:40, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Vernon Philander (removing details of the batsmen dismissed). No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, and would enhance the content there. International five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy achievement, and by definition, a list of them within the main article has the necessary context and explanation, so does not fail NOTSTATS in this regard. Unfortunately the nom seems to be misrepresenting the consensus of the cited RFC, which closed:
"There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles."
wjematherplease leave a message... 14:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page, in particular the batter's dismissed and economy rate are really not needed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. We're not Cricinfo, this kind of information is plainly well outside the scope of an encyclopedic coverage of the topic (i.e. per another section of WP:NOT, "not every match played or goal scored is worthy of mention" - same thing here, not every statistical mention/good performance needs mention, let alone a dedicated article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 01:37, 12 February 2021 (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.