Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 English cricket season (8–30 April)


 * 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.  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 01:55, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

2005 English cricket season (8–30 April)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Contains a level of detail that fails WP:N. The provided references does not cover most of the article's content. SocietyBox (talk) 00:03, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the above reasons:


 * Delete, though it pains me to say so after people have put such a huge amount of work into the articles. Although they are currently largely unsourced, it would be easy to find sources. But the issue is that the whole series of articles is just WP:ROUTINE coverage that would be perfect in a newspaper, which Wikipedia is not, or a season almanac. Dricherby (talk) 11:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that Wikipedia does include some functions of almanacs. Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * These articles are the results of the mergers discussed at Articles for deletion/Cricket matches articles. Uncle G (talk) 13:08, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for linking to that. Having read quickly through the discussion, I don't see anything there that changes my opinion that the articles are just routine news coverage of mostly routine sports matches (and I say that as a big fan of cricket). In particular, the requests to keep and merge did not seem to be policy-based in general. I agree that Wikipedia includes some functions of almanacs but that doesn't mean all functions. In particular, if you want to look up a player's overall career stats, Wikipedia is as good a place as, say, cricinfo.com — professional cricketers are notable, so Wikipedia has biographies of them and such a biography would be incomplete without their stats. But I don't see any notability in the individual matches. Dricherby (talk) 14:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all. The following is a typical example of a "match report":

"Essex Eagles imploded to 122 all out in chase of a small target to bring a tiny measure of excitement into the National League title race, while Gloucestershire Gladiators recorded a rare victory to take them out of the relegation zone. Batting first, Gloucestershire were bowled out for 182 in only 44.1 overs, Matt Windows top-scoring with 57 while Darren Gough and Grant Flower took three wickets each. Malinga Bandara and Martyn Ball shared the highest partnership of the match, adding 59 runs for the ninth wicket to carry Gloucestershire from 118 for 8. Essex then crawled to 49 for 7, James Averis finishing with amazing figures of 8–2–9–2, while Ball and Mark Alleyne also grabbed two wickets each. Despite 46 from New Zealand all-rounder Andre Adams, Essex were all out for 122 when Adams was caught off the bowling of Mark Hardinges."
 * Other than a pointer, not a reference as such, to a scorecard on the CricketArchive site, there is no verifiability at all. The paragraph contains examples of WP:POV and WP:PEACOCK terms. The terms of WP:ROUTINE summarise the articles very well and I do not think they are appropriate. --Brian (talk) 16:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, almost all of that report is verifiable from the scorecard and a table of the season's league results, or from almost any media report of the match. (The exceptions are the POV terms "imploded", "tiny measure of excitement", "amazing" and "crawled".) The issue here is notability, rather than verifiability. Dricherby (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see where you are coming from but I don't think notability is an issue. The articles are about first-class cricket and concern competitions, clubs, venues and players who all meet the criteria laid down in WP:CRIN which effectively summarises notability in terms of cricket. --Brian (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Notability is absolutely an issue. WP:CRIN summarizes notability of cricketers, teams and venues but says nothing about individual matches. The players, teams and venues mentioned in the articles being notable does not establish that the matches discussed are notable because not everything done by a notable person or organization is, itself, notable (WP:NOTINHERITED). The key policy here is WP:NOTNEWSPAPER: "... routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." These articles are precisely routine sports news reporting. The guideline for notability of sporting matches is WP:SPORTSEVENT. That doesn't mention cricket but the examples given imply that ordinary matches from a domestic season are not notable, unless something unusual happens that causes a match to receive much higher levels of coverage. I'm not even convinced that the international matches are individually notable, though the series are (WP:NSEASONS) and, for example, the 2005 Ashes series already has its own article with detailed match summaries. Dricherby (talk) 09:04, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Hate to say it, but while they do no harm, the rationale behind the nomination can't be faulted. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:22, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or partially merge any useful content. We have an article, 2005 English cricket season, I don't see the need to have arbitrary sub-topics on that. I agree with Dricherby that the coverage here is trivial (I'm basing that comment on 2005 English cricket season (8–30 April), it can be disregarded if that article is not representative.) These articles may be WP:USEFUL to some people, but in my opinion, they are outside the scope of an encyclopedia. 109.77.136.224 (talk) 16:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete far too much detail, and the tone is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Agree with the IP user above that anything useful should be merged into the parent article, though I doubt there is much of use to upmerge.  Harrias  talk 21:55, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Like I said above, the rationale for deletion can't be faulted. Unfortunate as clearly much effort was put into the articles. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 22:25, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all of them, merging anything useful as appropriate. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge anything useful and delete the rest. Too much detail more suited to Wisden than Wikipedia. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:55, 26 May 2012 (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.