Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve

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.

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve (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)

Please note that this page will be used for

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:23, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The
  WP:LISTN and that should IMO be the criteria we would weigh these lists against. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Galobtter: it could be merged with the Lord's honours board page. ImmortalWizard(chat) 19:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Some of these look like original research as well (have not check them all yet), if a list did make notability based on secondary sources then it could be kept, though merging Lords feels more tidy. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

• Delete and where appropriate copy across to the article about the ground they pertain to, maybe as a collapsible box for neatness. StickyWicket (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per
  WP:NOTSTATS. A simple ESPNCricinfo records search can provide the best bowling figures for every match at a given ground: [1] and [2]. Duplicating content here is heavily reliant on manual editing. Ajf773 (talk) 23:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ajf773 can you explain why it would not be helpful to keep them? Other cricket lists can also be found easily on Cricinfo. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:44, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The above contains ten features lists:

• List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval
• List of international cricket centuries at Bellerive Oval
• List of international cricket centuries at Brabourne Stadium
• List of international cricket centuries at the Green Park Stadium
• List of international cricket centuries at Kensington Oval
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Brabourne Stadium
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Chidambaram Stadium
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at McLean Park
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Riverside Ground
• List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at the Sher-e-Bangla National Cricket Stadium

of which List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval has also appeared on the main page. All of these lists can rise to this level. May I suggest though that a minimum number of centuries and five-wicket hauls be achieved before a standalone list is created. Much like for the individual players list for centuries (25) and five-wicket hauls (15). – Ianblair23 (talk) 02:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:NOTSTATS or other. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC))[reply
  ]

Hi

WP:NOTSTATS has been used for deletion and I supported many of them. I would argue that these lists are different. These are a listing of the highest accolades a player can achieve in the great game of cricket, an international cricket century or five-wicket haul. Most grounds have honour boards listing these achievements. These are certainly notable in my opinion. I still feel the best approach is to have stand alone lists for the grounds where a certain number of centuries and fifers have been reached included with appropriate prose. The rest be can merged into the article on the ground itself just like what we do with players who haven't reached the threshold for a stand alone centuries and five-wicket hauls lists. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ianblair23: Partially agree with you. Some of them like of the Lord's can be kept with merge or modification. But even if it had like 50 fifers (like Shere Bangla, which I created and is F list), it's not always significant to have its own stand alone. Like other sports, list of achievements by players should exist, and by ground should only exist if the venue itself is significant. ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:45, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is important information. Unfortunately it is repeated throughout Wikipedia eg
  WP:NOTSTATS. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply
  ]

@Dushan Jugum: That would work, like merging all of them to their respective countries' grounds. ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I picked ONE list at random: List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Shaheed Chandu Stadium. Why would the nom create it on the 17th Jan, to then nominate it for deletion one day later, with it being created 8 minutes before posting this at the Cricket Project?! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is within the bounds of their deletion nomination comment. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 07:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)).[reply]

This is indeed quite strange behaviour and this whole AFD seems

POINTY to me but I think this is good opportunity to set some threshold for these types of lists. In the case above where only three international fifers have been taken at the ground well that could be easily merged into the Shaheed Chandu Stadium article. Perhaps we could use the same threshold as we do for players list – 25 for centuries and 15 for fifers. Cheers – Ianblair23 (talk) 07:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

How about 25 for each, for simplicity? That's a reasonable compromise, although personally I worry about the level of NOTSTATS and OR in these - in particular I am unconvinced that we need to have the names of the people dismissed - we can just link to the scorecard can't we? Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:33, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ianblair23 and Lugnuts I thought I already clarified I am not trying to be pointy. I changed my opinion and looked things from a different perspective, which is perfectly alright. ImmortalWizard(chat) 09:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not safe to blithely assert that a century or five wickets in an event potentially lasting a day or more is equivalent to a goal in a 90 minute football match. Someone will need to present some statistics to demonstrate that equivalence.

  I'd suggest that bundling the "by ground" lists into "by country" lists, like List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Australian cricket grounds, is the way to go. Where the lists are very short, five or ten entries say, they can also appear on the article for the ground, but if they are longer they could be spun out into a separate (sub-)article. A similar analysis applies to other lists, eg by player: incorporate into the main article where you can, but separate out where it becomes oppressive and unwieldy. 213.205.240.201 (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. So far, there are five ways suggested by the participants.
  1. Delete all. (They do not follow
     WP:NOR
     , and are not simply significant compared to the achievements by players, and also other sports are taken into account)
  2. Merge all to their respective achievements by country only. (Which I mostly prefer for now)
  3. Keep only the notable ones. (Like the Lord's, because of it's honour board. I can fine with this case, but their significance should be explained and a lot of modifications required regarding article titles, potential merging etc.)
  4. Keep only the ones which have a certain number of achievements. (It will be difficult to come up with a minimum level and I do not believe it will make sense. Because achievements in Lord's and and say a normal stadium in India/New Zealand etc. are vastly different regarding historical significance, quality of matches, other variables etc.)
  5. Keep all (They are all significant and some of them are featured)

Let me know if I missed something. ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:06, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:43, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 14:47, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all I am coming to this AfD from
  Wikipedia:Content_forking#Acceptable_types_of_forking The stadium article should contain a paragraph summarizing these lists and should have a link to these articles about 5 wicket hauls. The readers of the stadium article would most likely also be interested in reading these records. I also note that many of them are FLs. Someone said keep only notable ones, the problem here would be how will me make a reasonable criteria of what is notable and what is not, if the stadium is notable and has its own article, then the stadium article must also contain a paragraph or line about the 5 wicket hauls in that stadium. And I don't support a merging all of them and making a highly bloated Country page is not the right way. It would be gigantic and would again need splitting, so we will continue in circles. --DBigXrayᗙ 16:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@DBigXray: I think there are a very few of them notable enough. WP:SPINOFF will be very difficult and inconsistent. There is not any five wicket haul article for Old Trafford Cricket Ground, even it has played a lot more matches than other grounds with the list. In terms of merging, it would not be a problem with collapsible boxes. As I've stated earlier, we have to look at other sports' wikiprojects in order to be consistent. Merging in fifers/centuries by country is the best option IMO. ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@DBigXray: Also, if people really wants to see them, merging would not be a problem and will create ONE significant list per country for centuries and fifers each. I think people are interested to see goals scored in a football ground as well, but list of goals by individual players is good enough. Club/countries listing their own records is also enough, like List of Manchester United F.C. records and statistics and List of Australia Test cricket records. Rather than listing, only summarizing the notable facts seems fair (example: M. A. Chidambaram Stadium#Notable events). Also, some of the grounds play other sports rather than only cricket, which might make the lists unfair. ImmortalWizard(chat) 17:25, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Unfortunately, I cannot assume this is a good faith nomination, especially because a number of these articles are quality articles or featured lists, and the nominator has contributed extensively to some of these pages, which is baffling. (Also baffling is the nominator's recent attempt to get all articles with one source administratively deleted or them suddenly "joining" other WikiProjects.) This is a
  WP:TRAINWRECK. Some of these pages may not be notable and may need to be merged, but it's insane to delete all of these at once because one other article on the topic was deleted several months ago. SportingFlyer T·C 00:58, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@SportingFlyer: will you guys please stop attacking me. Just focus on the discussion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GAMING while I was just pointing out the policies and guidelines, turns out it's the same case here, trying to justify by attacking one user. ImmortalWizard(chat) 01:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@

WP:BLUD policy. SportingFlyer T·C 02:25, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@SportingFlyer: apologies for working hastily. But the situation ended up like this. I tried other alternatives before this but simply alleged of being "pointy". This discussion I'd going really well so far and I am proud of that. As I've said, I would prefer merge to achievements by country by now. So if you want, I would allow you to remove the tags from the by country achievements from this nomination. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:33, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You were called pointy here, so instead of trying to gain policy consensus on whether these should be included somewhere like the Wikiproject page, you decided to go ahead and nominate every single article in the category? And then you say "the situation ended up like this," as if it's someone else's fault? I'm also not removing anything, it's not my job to fix spurious nominations and these should all be kept pending further discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 02:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SportingFlyer I did seek for concensus on cricket wikiproject, but as I've said, I was too hasty. And no I don't blame anyone for ending up like this. If I were, I would only blame myself, now it's up to admins. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:56, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all Seems to a vexatious nomination and it puzzles me why they are being nominated en masse. There is no lack of space on Wikipedia. Valuable encyclopedic articles that are better worked into a over a long period of time before they are nominated. scope_creep^Talk 01:42, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope_creep sure every afd is vexatious. There is a reason for MULTIAFD. I don't mind if this nomination stays on for months, until a clear consensus, after all 100+ articles are at stake. And it's never mentioned that this nomination is because of lack of space. Also, I did argue on their values. ImmortalWizard(chat) 02:12, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Every Afd is not vexatious. Most are for obvious reasons. This isn't. scope_creep^Talk 02:32, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all As per
  WP:MULTIAFD is not to be used to delete a whole category of articles, which is what is being attempted here. Spike 'em (talk) 09:23, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep all Per SportingFlyer and Spike (and others). Apart from several featured lists that have been bundled into this one nomination, the whole thing is a big pointy trainwreck. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:37, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all and consider elsewhere - this is just wasting everyone's time. There is no chance of an AfD decision to delete all these lists. After one of these articles was deleted, consensus should have been formed within the cricket project as to whether all/only some/no "fifers by ground" articles are suitable for WP before the entire category was hurled into a chaotic AfD with an apparent disregard for
  WP:ALLORNOTHING.... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:47, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep all and start a proper discussion/RfC about it. This need a proper thought out discussion and consensus, not a seven day AfD debate for 100+ articles, some of which are FLs. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joseph2302 yeah can do that. But this can stay here for a month or two? ImmortalWizard(chat) 14:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, this AfD is not going to be kept open for "a month or two", that simply doesn't happen -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:40, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This has become a 'snow keep' in my opinion, even the nominator does not want to delete. A new topic has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:26, 20 January 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.