Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of international cricket centuries at Bellerive Oval/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was kept by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at Bellerive Oval[edit]

Featured list removal candidates/List of international cricket centuries at Bellerive Oval/archive1

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lists, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket

I am nominating this for featured list removal because it is long overdue. It was promoted in 2014 following this discussion which was overwhelmed by User:Vensatry, User:Sahara4u (because it favors them) giving the impression that it is being vetted properly without any regard to WP:NLIST and the fact that whole list is sourced with ESPNcricinfo match reports. No credible source discusses it as a set or group which is required so this list, in fact, fails WP:NLIST. Its counterpart List of international cricket five-wicket hauls at Bellerive Oval and many others were deleted recently for the same reason. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Irish cricket grounds, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Carisbrook, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at Dubai International Cricket Stadium. Thanks. Störm (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and speedy close. This is not an alternative venue for AFD. If you don't think the topic is notable, list it for deletion, as you have with literally hundreds of other cricket articles. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 07:43, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and speedy close. This is an attempt to circumnavigate AFD. If Störm wants to nominate for AFD, they are allowed to do so, but FLRC is not the appropriate venue for this. Also, not all sources are Cricinfo, and we should be assuming good faith on editor's motives, which the nominator clearly fails to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:23, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph2302 No, I'm not circumnavigating. I was unaware of the process. I thought it is not possible to delete a FL through AfD without delist. I am withdrawing this nom. Someone may speedy close this. Störm (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose per The Rambling Man and Joseph2302. I'd add further to that that I don't think this is a good faith nomination. The previous AfDs the nominator cites do NOT set a precedent for this page. He knows that full well and yet continues to make disruptive nominations to delete cricket articles like this one. Deus et lex (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and agree with User:Deus et lex that this, in light of the nominator's recent history- which saw him brought to ANI, where he gave a commitment not to AfD cricket articles, which he has now recanted from- may not be in good faith. The article is impeccably sourced, and if the nominator is particularly vexed by Cricinfo as a source, the same citations can easily be converted to Wisden, as every single international century has been listed there. To say that 'no credible source' contains this type of list is simply incorrect; see, for example, page 399 of Wisden 2004, which contains exactly the same type of list for the 2003 English domestic season. Earlier Wisdens are even more comprehensive (for example, my 1954 Wisden at pp. 180-182 has a list of every test century ever scored in the history of the sport, with exactly the same information of score, batsman, venue and year as is contained in this list). As such the nomination also betrays a startling lack of knowledge of the subject on which the nominator seeks to opine. I note the nominator's comment above; however, in light of previous recantations of statements, I wanted to place my views on this nomination on the record in case of another volte-face. DevaCat1 (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This FLRC was inevitable due to the nominator being wrongly advised on several occasions at AFD (by multiple editors, who thankfully have not chimed in here) that FLs were not suitable candidates for deletion and would need to be delisted first. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:25, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been kept, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.