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
Terry Alderman. There is no consensus here either way whether to merge this content to
Terry Alderman or not; that conversation would be best suited to the talk page of the article or a more central location. However, there is consensus in the discussion below that the article should not remain in its current form, which redirecting achieves. Editors can, either boldly or with consensus, rescue the content from behind the redirect and perform a merge to
Terry Alderman should they wish, and normal editorial process can take it from there.
Daniel (
talk) 00:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)reply
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) 07:20, 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
Terry Alderman. 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 (
talk) 12:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Terry Alderman (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... 14:16, 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
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) 08:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment - as mentioned in other AfDs, putting statistics into a main article does not violate WP:STATS. You need to stop making that argument.
Deus et lex (
talk) 10:07, 28 January 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.