Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 February 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Akronowner (talk | contribs) at 05:24, 5 February 2021 (Adding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodrigo Moreira (producer).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

< February 04 February 06 >

Purge server cache

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. Daniel (talk) 12:48, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rodrigo Moreira (producer)

Rodrigo Moreira (producer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Current sources doesn't indicate WP:GNG. Can be merged to Miss Teen Earth International Akronowner (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Akronowner (talk · contribs) has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Pahunkat (talk) 13:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:49, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:49, 5 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.
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 no consensus. I originally closed this as keep but was asked to re-read the discussion on my usertalk. There was clearly other stuff going on with this discussion besides determining notability. In examining the comments which focus on the notability of this topic alone and do not consider the procedural keeps, there is a clear divide between those who feel that the sourcing provided satisfies WP:NCORP and those who believe it does not. This leads to a no consensus outcome. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Chronic Tacos

Chronic Tacos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional to an extent, Fails WP:GNG Akronowner (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Nom has been blocked as a sock. StarM 16:51, 10 February 2021 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Akronowner (talk) 05:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Who has asked you for money? Does this matter have any relevance to User:Jotun-la, who has written this page? Richard Keatinge (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Keatinge: It was presumably the AfD initiator, Akronowner, who has previously been accused of extortion. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Third party independent restaurant reviews are not trivial. Reviews are one of the main ways we determine notability for books, movies and other things. There are a bunch of reviews in the above list. Plus other types of coverage. -- GreenC 18:41, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Like an author of a news article reviewing how the food tastes good at his/her local Chronic Tacos? I Hope you're not referring to that kind of review because that's pretty much all of the "reviews" in many of these sources provided above are like. Jerm (talk) 19:46, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
We must not be reading the same reviews. User:Cunard was kind enough to include quotes from the reviews. Search this page for "Needless to say, I had high hopes for Chronic Tacos. Unfortunately, it missed the mark". More like that. Did you read them? I can't imagine you did if you characterize scathing reviews like that as "how good the food tastes". But either way, it's not like you have to agree with the review, or the review needs to be negative to be authentic. -- GreenC 21:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC I stopped reading at reference #16 because every source was practically discussing the same thing, a local chain and a brief history on how the company started. Maybe reference #11 might has some info, IDK. I assume Cunard just grabbed these sources from web.archive.org and inserted quotes next to them, but I encourage you and those who already inserted their votes to actually read them. Maybe I missed something while reading. Jerm (talk) 22:04, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Whether or not there was an extortion attempt notwithstanding, the deep dive into the sources done by Cunard is well-appreciated. I have to disagree with Jerm, as that guideline applies to the quality of sourcing, not the quality of the article's content, and it beggars belief that legitimate restaurant reviews are the sort of routine coverage that CORPDEPTH is intended to address. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Takes a strong man to deny... 18:36, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're wrong per WP:CORPDEPTH:

Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant. Views, hits, likes, shares, etc. have no bearing on establishing whether the coverage is significant. Similarly, arbitrary statistics and numbers (such as number of employees, amount of revenue or raised capital, age of the company, etc.) do not make the coverage significant. For the coverage to be significant, the sources must describe and discuss in some depth the treatment of the employees or major changes in leadership instead of just listing the fact that the corporation employs 500 people or mentioning that John Smith was appointed as the new CEO. Further, the significance is not determined by the reputation of the source. For example, a 400-word article in The Village Voice is a lot more significant than a single-sentence mention in The New York Times. However, the reputation of the source does help to determine whether the source is reliable and independent.

And I actually went through the sources. All they talk about is the types a food that's being sold from the menu, prices, location, maybe a local chain being opened up at some town, number of employees of a local chain depending on the source. The only thing that seemed notable is who started it and where but that's really it. Yeah, there are a lot of sources provided above but with insignificant info. Yeah, still trivial info per WP:CORPDEPTH/Examples of trivial coverage. Jerm (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking through the sources provided by Cunard they all seem to be local stories, from local news outlets, about individual locations opening or closing. Which is pretty run of the mill, trivial, and fails WP:NORG. Literally every restaurant chain gets the same exact kind of coverage and they don't all deserve articles because of it. An article that is just a list of local locations with closing dates or whatever isn't really encyclopedic and I see nothing else that is in-depth about the company itself from any of the references he provided. Otherwise, if someone can provide WP:THREE that do I'll probably change my vote. Until then though, there's nothing about this that passes WP:NORG from what I can tell. Not to mention the article is clearly written by a COI editor to sound like an advert. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD initiator has a strong COI of it's own. Paid for getting this article deleted?! MarioJump83! 01:05, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Strong? So I assume that's not confirmed. Even if that were true, being paid to have an article deleted is actually irrelevant because that's not what determines the deletion of an article. Jerm (talk) 02:14, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFD initiator has blocked for socking, so it's now no longer theoretical. That said, AFAIK there was never any suggestion anyone was paying them for deletion. The suggestion was they were asking for payment to stop deletion. Precisely what is going on is still unclear at least publicly. One common suggestion is a connection between the AFD initiator and the creator although if that's the case so far they've avoided detection and perhaps we'll never know for sure. Nil Einne (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BEFORE has no bearing on the matter if the article is already in the deletion process, and WP:HEY is neither policy nor guideline. Jerm (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per arguments by Cunard. Expertwikiguy (talk) 22:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per the RfC at WP:N, GNG is *not* the applicable guideline to examining sources to establish notability, it is NCORP. As everyone is citing Cunards references as being sufficient, note that Cunard ignores NCORP and provides reasoning from GNG. For example, Cunard's first reference from fesmag is based *entirely* on information provided by the company and their CEO. It is a classic advertorial and fails WP:ORGIND. Lots of the others are reviews of individual restaurants and not an in-depth article on *the company* which is what is required to establish notability - use reviews of individual restaurants if you want an article on an individual restaurant. If Cunard or anyone else believes that there are at least two references that meet the NCORP guidelines, post the links here and lets take a look. As it is, topic fails WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 14:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not meet WP:NCORP after looking at the sources. Reviews of different locations of the same restaurant does not seem to be independent to me. Bigpencils (talk) 07:32, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Independent means independent of the subject. If they are from one publication arguably they could be regarded as one source but there are several publications here. Peter James (talk) 13:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, also must contain "Independent content" in order to count towards establishing notability, i.e. original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. See WP:ORGIND. We need more than "echo chamber" articles that simply repeat the information put out by the company. HighKing++ 18:16, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural keep: The nominator has been blocked and there are indications of attempts at financial gain. As with another recent AfD I feel WP needs to neutralise gaming by reputation management commerce. AllyD (talk) 12:12, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Meets the general notability guidelines. (Creativecreatr (talk) 19:50, 13 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.
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) 04:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ootens Store, Kentucky

Ootens Store, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNIS entry is sourced to Rennick, despite this place not being mentioned in his finished book, his exhaustive index, or his guide of Clinton County post offices. Clinton County directory mentions a David G. Ooten but no Ooten's store. There's some sort of survey benchmark at Ooten's store. Topos show the benchmark and a couple buildings at the site. Nothing on newspapers.com. Google books results are a couple passing mentions in lists of place names and a reference to an F0 tornado tearing up some scaffolding at Ooten's Store. Nothing anywhere else I can turn up on my WP:BEFORE. There may have once been something here, but WP:GEOLAND requires legal recognition as a community, not just a cluster of buildings, and I'm not seeing GEOLAND or WP:GNG here. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Talk 04:18, 5 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.
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) 04:24, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nines Club

Nines Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The Guardian article is not enough to support the article; the other ref is a mere mention about 1 individual in a local publication DGG ( talk ) 04:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 08:15, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:44, 8 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.
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 merge to Shikhar Dhawan. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Shikhar Dhawan

List of international cricket centuries by Shikhar Dhawan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Störm (talk) 07:04, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge to Shikhar Dhawan. Lists of international centuries are, by definition, notable achievements and detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go. These lists have the necessary context and explanation so do not fail NOTSTATS. Having said that, there are no issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, so a merge would be appropriate. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article on Shikhar Dhawan, as per same argument as above. No need for separate page.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 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.
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 merge to V. V. S. Laxman. Black Kite (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman

List of international cricket centuries by V. V. S. Laxman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Störm (talk) 07:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 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.
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 merge to Gordon Greenidge. Black Kite (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Gordon Greenidge

List of international cricket centuries by Gordon Greenidge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Selective merge is possible as his parent page has a lot space for a detailed bio. Störm (talk) 07:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Barbados-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:14, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 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.
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 redirect to Tamim Iqbal. No consensus to merge the content exists here, although that can be explored on the relevant talk page of the main article (or an appropriate noticeboard or Wikiproject/RfC as part of a larger discussion) if desired. The content to be potentially merged is still accessible behind the redirect. Daniel (talk) 13:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Tamim Iqbal

List of international cricket centuries by Tamim Iqbal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Störm (talk) 06:57, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:10, 19 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.
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 merge to Tillakaratne Dilshan. Spartaz Humbug! 18:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Tillakaratne Dilshan

List of international cricket centuries by Tillakaratne Dilshan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST. No source discusses his centuries as a group. The consensus is that such lists are not required. Störm (talk) 06:55, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Except keeping this as a redirect opens up a pandora box because people will expect it to be made into an actual list, or for this kind of thing to exist for other players; which it simply shouldn't. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's nonsense. Firstly, no one is saying the material shouldn't be merged into the article in a way that isn't inappropriate. A list of centuries is contained and discrete and can be put in the article (which is mostly text-based) in a way that works. The way in which that is happening is not being determined here, the question is simply whether a merge is appropriate, which it is. And let's not raise a "floodgates" argument - let's stick to THIS AfD about the one cricket player. Deus et lex (talk) 07:57, 1 March 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.
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 merge to Craig McDermott. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Craig McDermott

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Craig McDermott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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) 07:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - Firstly, the claim that the RfC had a consensus to cover all cricket articles is a complete lie, the closing administrator noted that "here'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". Secondly, I simply don't believe that there is no source that would compile his five wicket hauls together, but the obvious solution is to merge the list of five wicket hauls to Craig McDermott. A valid alternative to deletion that is not inappropriate. The sourcing is entirely fine for an article outside of a list. Deletion is a poor and lazy option here and editors need to find other solutions rather than just nominating the article for deletion.The nominator has a clear bias against particular cricket articles and needs to stop nominating them for deletion when a clear alternative exists and they are required to consider those before deleting. Deus et lex Deus et lex (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Craig McDermott (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... 14:14, 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) 16:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 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.
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 merge to Makhaya Ntini. Black Kite (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Makhaya Ntini

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Makhaya Ntini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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". Plenty of space on the main article available. 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) 07:18, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:21, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (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... 14:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The wikiproject cricket consensus was that these were fine if they had 20+ five-wicket hauls, which Ntini has. Improve rather than delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:26, 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) 16:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:09, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a clear result here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 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.
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 merge to Graham McKenzie. Black Kite (talk) 22:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Graham McKenzie

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Graham McKenzie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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) 07:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:19, 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) 03:55, 5 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.
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 merge to Daniel Vettori. The consensus here is to merge including the nominator. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 20:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Daniel Vettori (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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". Space available on parent article to merge prose, if any. 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) 07:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Daniel Vettori (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... 14:17, 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) 16:33, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:06, 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) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 19 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.
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 merge to Yasir Shah. The consensus here is to merge including the nominator. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 20:24, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Yasir Shah

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Yasir Shah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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) 07:30, 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 Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Yasir Shah (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... 14:18, 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) 16:34, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:04, 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) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 22:14, 19 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.
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. In this particular discussion there is a consensus that there are policy based reasons to delete this article rather than to merge it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Alec Bedser

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Alec Bedser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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". Plenty of space on the main article to merge prose, if any. 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) 07:37, 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 England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Alec Bedser (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) 20:02, 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) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per those above. BD2412 T 06:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NOTSTATS, and per my comments at a previous similar AfD: We're Wikipedia, not Cricinfo, this provides nothing but INDISCRIMINATE statistics, and "not every goal scored or match played..." (WP:NOTDIARY) is also relevant (with the necessary vocabulary changes for cricket). Keeping as redirect is also out of the question per WP:PANDORA, since there's no reason this kind of article should exist: those interested in such statistics would do well to be pointed directly to Cricinfo, which usually contains the most up-to-date information, and is also free of potential errors caused by vandalism; and is the cited source anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 18 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.
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 merge to Tim Southee. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Tim Southee

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Tim Southee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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) 07:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tim Southee (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... 14:21, 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) 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article. Five wicket hauls at international are notable and historical events which are rareDavidstewartharvey (talk) 19:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article is just a list of scores from ESPNCricinfo and has no independent sources covering these individual achievements as a set. Agree with nom that there should be no precedent to include these on players' articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please be aware that ESPNCricinfo information comes from the cricket Bible Wisden Cricket Almanack.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:11, 28 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) 03:55, 5 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.
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 redirect to Kagiso Rabada. While by counting bolded !votes, there is a delete consensus, several of the editors favor deletion note that very limited material might be worth preserving. Given the alternatives to deletion policy, it would be inappropriate to delete, therefore closing as redirect to honor the consensus as appropriately informed by policy. Barkeep49 (talk) 20:09, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kagiso Rabada

AfDs for this article:
List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Kagiso Rabada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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 Kagiso Rabada (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... 14:20, 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) 16:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:59, 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) 03:55, 5 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.
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

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Vernon Philander (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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.
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. Tone 10:23, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Poaching (snowboarding)

Poaching (snowboarding) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article seems to be more of a dictionary definition, with some advertising by Burton Snowboards mixed in. Is this a notable or widely used term? Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 01:57, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A few years ago I modified the article in order to bring it up to conformity as to make it not specifically a definition. That is why I listed citations pertaining to the Forest Service in the snowboard ban at Alta Ski Resort as well as listed two additional resorts that currently ban snowboarders (Deer Valley and Mad River Glen). It gives information and examples to better help someone research the term. The term "poaching" is widely used among snow sport enthusiasts, especially in Utah where two of the three snowboard ban resorts are located. I live in Utah, and hear the phrase often especially when referring to Alta Ski Resort. I've been pleased to see additional information added over the years as well as articles with a number of sources to back up claims. Yes, the term "poaching" can sometimes be used (as what Wikipedia would classify) as a slang word, but this article on poaching wasn't written or was intended to be a slang guide, it is an informational page explaining what snowboard poaching is and gives source based information to back it up. This is not a dictionary article, it is an informational piece to help people understand better why snowboarders aren't allowed at some ski resorts. Cquick7 (talk) 02:31, 6 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.
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 redirect to Azerbaijani dances#Asma kasma as an alternative to deletion. Low traffic discussion. (non-admin closure) Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:42, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Asma kasma

Asma kasma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub since 2007. WP:V issues unaddressed in 2006 deletion discussion, and no RS found. Miniapolis 00:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
However, it's also unsourced in that article. Miniapolis 02:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Add a tag there, if you wish. By the way, I do tend to trust the info there, in context with other information, perhaps reviewed or considered by more informed persons, better than I trust it in a standalone article. --Doncram (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:V, although I don't have much of a problem with your redirect !vote above. Miniapolis 23:55, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2021_February_5&oldid=1004945326"