Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of cricket bowlers

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.

Comparison of cricket bowlers

Comparison of cricket bowlers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Non-encyclopedic sporting cruft, inclusion in the list is purely subjective and none has any encyclopedic value. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 04:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Appears to be useful enough. --
  27 09:09, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete. The creator appears to have put a great deal of effort into the table, but it's not clear what the criteria for inclusion are or what the table is intended to show. JH (talk page) 09:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Query - a number of past cricket bowlers - is there any criterion by which the bowlers were chosen (the all-time leading wicket takers, or something?) or is it just a random selection of "former greats"? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:58, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a random selection, Jim Laker is the 57th leading Test wicket-taker and amongst 149 bowlers with 100 Test wickets Sobers is 128th in term of averages. Sobers also played one One Day International so his place on that table is very questionable. --Jpeeling (talk • contribs) 10:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm reluctant to delete something that someone has worked hard on putting together, but it's an analysis of 16 athletes who, I am presuming, excelled as bowlers in cricket. The American equivalent would be a comparison of the statistics of 16 great pitchers, or 16 great quarterbacks. I'm willing to listen politely, and without any discouraging comment, to any description of what the purpose of the table would be. As an alternative to this, I'd encourage the author to make rankings for bowling average, strike rate, economy rate, etc., similar to ones like
  this. Looking over Category: Cricket lists, I see that there's room for this, and Wikipedia is pretty generous when it comes to sports articles. Mandsford (talk) 13:34, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete A well developed list but it is an indiscriminate list with no inclusion criteria. I'm struggling to understand why Srinath would be in, but not Kumble (for India); why pigeon isn't in the list etc etc. -SpacemanSpiff 15:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, indiscriminate list. I'm surprised how you could make a list like this and not include Glenn McGrath, for instance. Until some concrete criteria are drawn up for inclusion, this is inherently
  WP:OR. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:02, 28 October 2009 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Comment - I agree this list appear indiscriminate, although I don't know much about cricket, and so appears to be delete-worthy. But the creator appears to be a new editor who may not be familiar with all the Wikirules, and it sounds from the discussion above that the article may be salvageable if it is reorganized in a more appropriate fashion (including replacing some members of the list with others). It seems like it may be more productive to keep for now, but for someone who is more familiar than I with the content to explain the deletion concerns with the editor and how he might be able to bring it up to standards. Rlendog (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but expand and explain. The list is not indiscriminate, as it applies to notable bowlers with a Wikipedia article only, not evertyone who has ever played a game somewhere. But since it does not include all of them, there hneeds to be some specidic basis for the choi=ce of whom to include. DGG ( talk ) 01:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you here DDG. I'm not sure how familiar you are with cricket, but it's a notoriously statistics-bound game, much more so than conceptually similar games like baseball. Merely defining what makes a "good" bowler is a matter of oftentimes heated debate amongst cricket statisticians and fans; it could be someone who takes a lot of wickets (
    WP:OR. I could see articles like Comparison of cricket bowlers with 100 test wickets possibly not falling afoul of this problem, but then again, we are talking about this article, not some other hypothetical list. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC).[reply
    ]
• Delete. As much as it pains me due to the work put in (I can respect and sympathize) the criteria for inclusion into the list strikes me as too random. I defer to
  WP:NOT#STATS. While there may be some guidelines for this particular list, I think in order to keep it some really specific rules would need to be put in place (even then, I'm not sure how notable it really is). I'm open to that possibility--but as it currently is, I must vote delete. Cocytus [»talk«] 04:04, 30 October 2009 (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.