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

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Basin Reserve

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

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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 WP:MULTIAFD for all articles in Category:Lists of international cricket five-wicket hauls by ground and Category:Lists of international cricket centuries by ground. For a while, I had no problems with this type of articles. I even cricket four of them (with one is a F list). However, I came across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at M. A. Aziz Stadium and it really caught my eyes. It was deleted basically because it is WP:NOTSTATS. Now that I think about it, there is no "List of international goals/home runs by grounds" in football/baseball, or any other sports. It is safe to say that goals have the same worth as five wicket hauls and centuries. Please understand that I am not trying to WP:POINT, I just realized that these articles should not exist here. Thanks, and feel to expand your arguments both for or against deletion. ImmortalWizard(chat) 18:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because of the reasons provided above:

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

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

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

• The Lord's ones should probably be separated out; due to the significance of getting one's name on the honours boards, the lists would meet WP:LISTN and that should IMO be the criteria we would weigh these lists against. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

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

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

• 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)).

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

• @User:Ianblair23, it would break my heart to be part of deleting all this hard work, the issue is not formatting but content can you offer an argument for why it should be kept from WP:NOTSTATS or other. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC))

Hi Dushan Jugum, I have been part of many AFDs where 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)

@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)

• Keep This is important information. Unfortunately it is repeated throughout Wikipedia eg List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Mitchell Johnson etc. We do not need 5 wicket hauls by person, country and stadium (sortable table?). The solution, however, is not a blanket deletion, therefore, keep with selective mergers. In the examples I checked the information is given enough context and notability to pass WP:NOTSTATS. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 04:48, 19 January 2019 (UTC)).

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

• 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)

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

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

• Comment. So far, there are five ways suggested by the participants.
  1. Delete all. (They do not follow WP:NOTSTATS, WP:GNG, 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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Keep all I am coming to this AfD from WP:INDIA and WP:CRICKET. I don't consider this as a violation of WP:NOSTAT, I consider these articles a logical and acceptable WP:SPINOFF based on 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)