Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 in cricket


 * 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

2004 in cricket

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Five Year in cricket articles which are now essentially redundant to the International cricket in season articles, specifically International cricket in 2004–05, International cricket in 2005, International cricket in 2005–06, International cricket in 2006, International cricket in 2006–07, International cricket in 2007, International cricket in 2007–08, International cricket in 2009–10, International cricket in 2010 and International cricket in 2010–11. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages:
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. – Ianblair23 (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep It follows the notability guidelines, much like other [Year] in [Sport] articles. I'm Caker18 ! I edit Wikipedia sparingly. (talk)  06:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Please see Sockpuppet_investigations/DeepNikita/Archive for Caker18. Störm   (talk)  09:14, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

*Keep This agrees with MOS:LIST criteria. A number of notable topics are part of this list. This is an effective way to chronicle this information on Wikipedia. It may be difficult to have single articles for each of these items, although there are independent articles linked to these. These are also a good way to aggregate and concentrate this information in one place and under one comprehensive title for each page listed above. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 06:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Based on the responses I am withdrawing my ivote. I might Ivote later, after more scrutiny of the articles. Steve Quinn (talk) 00:08, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 07:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete all as per nominator. These are redundant parts of an incomplete series and I think they breach WP:IINFO as lists created for the sake of creating lists and then never developed individually or completed as a series. I don't believe they add value and updating them would be a nightmare. The international cricket series is sufficient for listing the events. No Great Shaker (talk) 08:03, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all as WP also acts as chronicle, or almanack. So, it is useful to have articles by year as they encompasses whole cricket i.e. domestic, and international. Störm   (talk)  11:14, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - Calendar years and domestic seasons do not match up in the southern hemisphere. "Events of calendar year 2004", "Events of the 2004-05 [X country if necessary/wanted] season", and (for example) "Indian cricket in 2004-05", would refer to two different periods of time. If anything, surely the logic should be the other way round? Being an incomplete series does not make something intrinsically useless. Also, "international cricket in 2004" and "domestic cricket in 2004" (not that I would set up an article on the latter without slightly tidier article names) would refer to two completely different things. Bobo. 23:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete all per nom and WP:TNT. It's worth noting that these are stand-alone articles, started with good intentions, but then left to decay. 2004 has one reference. 2005 has no references. 2006 has one ref. 2007 has lots of refs (38), but apparently nothing of note happened after 13th June. 2010 has no refs and the page stops at 25th April. I don't think there's anything worth salvaging or merging to either.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 19:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Caker18 succinctly sums up why they should be kept. StickyWicket (talk) 19:03, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 22:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability guidlines are satisfied. TruthGuardians (talk) 05:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.