Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003


 * 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 its clear from this discussion that they do need to be expanded, whether some should be merged into broader scope articles (aka Indian cricket team in Australia)  or deleted is indeterminable given the sheer volume and variance in both subject matter and potential sourcing. Gnangarra 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Borderline speedy candidate as there is little to no context to this article. I am also including the following in this nomination (apologies in advance for the huge mass nomination):


 * width="33%" align="left" valign="top" style="border:0"|
 * No development
 * Indian cricket team in Australia in 2001-02
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1898-99
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1913-14
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1925-26
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1927-28
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1937-38
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1953-54
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1961-62
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1967-68
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1969-70
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1970-71
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1972-73
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1973-74
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1980-81
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1982-83
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1985-86
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1987-88
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1989-90
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1990-91
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1993-94
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1996-97
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1997-98
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 1998-99
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2000-01
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2002-03
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1964-65
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1972-73
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1976-77
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1978-79
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1981-82
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1983-84
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1988-89
 * width="33%" align="left" valign="top" style="border:0"|
 * No development
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1991-92
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1992-93
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1995-96
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1996-97
 * Rest of the World XI cricket team in Australia in 1971-72
 * South African cricket team in Australia in 1910-11
 * South African cricket team in Australia in 1931-32
 * South African cricket team in Australia in 1952-53
 * South African cricket team in Australia in 1963-64
 * South African cricket team in Australia in 2001-02
 * Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1982-83
 * Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1984-85
 * Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1987-88
 * Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1989-90
 * Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1995-96
 * Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 1998-99
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1930-31
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1951-52
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1968-69
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1975-76
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1979-80
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1981-82
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1983-84
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1984-85
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1986-87
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1988-89
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1991-92
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1995-96
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1996-97
 * Zimbabwean cricket team in Australia in 1994-95
 * Zimbabwean cricket team in Australia in 2000-01


 * width="33%" align="left" valign="top" style="border:0"|
 * Development or partial development
 * Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003
 * Indian cricket team in Australia in 1947-48
 * Indian cricket team in Australia in 1967-68
 * Indian cricket team in Australia in 1977-78
 * Indian cricket team in Australia in 1980-81
 * Indian cricket team in Australia in 1985-86
 * Indian cricket team in Australia in 1991-92
 * Indian cricket team in Australia in 1999-2000
 * Indian cricket team in Australia in 2003-04
 * New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1989-90
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1999-2000
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2002
 * Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2004-05
 * Rest of the World XI cricket team in Australia in 2005-06
 * South African cricket team in Australia in 1993-94
 * South African cricket team in Australia in 1997-98
 * Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 2002-03
 * Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 2004
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1992-93
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2000-01
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2004-05
 * Zimbabwean cricket team in Australia in 2003-04

Okay. All of these articles are identical - a generic template, a couple references, and the body which states "The (country) cricket team toured Australia in the (years) season." No additional content, context or information. Perhaps there is a better solution to this problem, like merging this information into a single list, but I'm not sure. In any case these articles are superfluous and ought to be purged.

Note : I am in the process of tagging these articles with AfD headers, but it may take a while.

 Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I STRONGLY OPPOSE this mass deletion because they are notable articles and even though they are short they should not be deleted as they will be expanded in the future. Each article is fully referenced and do believe that in the future these articles will be expanded so it wastes the time of the people that created these articles. I do not know if you are a cricket supporter but I hope if you are you re consider this mass deletion and appreciate the time and effort that fellow cricket lovers have spent their time creating

I hope you re consider and remove the deletion tags. I would like you to respond on this matter to my talk page. 02blythed 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually since the information is germane to this discussion, i will reply here instead of your talk page. With all due respect to yourself and all interested cricket lovers, I cannot reconsider this nomination at this time.  You say the articles will be improved in the future - I look at the entire batch, created over 4 months ago, and the only edit to them has been to add a stub categorization.  This does not indicate to me that these are a "work in progress".  These articles have no useful content and all they do is repeat the information available in the included template.  I do not believe that creating "placeholder articles" for future improvement is appropriate.  Stub articles are fine, but these aren't even stubs.   Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 19:52, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. As per Comment. Nominator has bad nom faith.--Edtropolis 19:40, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Pardon? What is "bad nom faith"?  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Whilst the events themselves are notable, the articles contain practically no content other than a repeat of the title. I'd much rather they were left as red-links in the hope that someone might write a proper article on the tours down the line. Andrew nixon 19:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. If anybody really wanted to expand those articles, they have had 4 months.--Svetovid 20:00, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Andrew nixon. While international cricket tours may or may not be notable; there is no context or real content in these. I also question whether a cricket tour is really notable; most other sports we handle in the main article, or rarely by season (year) but not by each tour or part of the season, for example at the article Bangladeshi cricket team, the team seems to have gone to Zimbabwe and Trinidad, and played lots of other countries at unspecified venues; I would not want there to be an article about each road trip or each match. Carlossuarez46 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Definitely fails context criteria. Whilst I have started expanding some of these, there is definitely no need to keep them in their current state: although it would be useful to have a record of where these were, for recreation *with* context at a later date. International cricket tours of Australia fulfills this for the articles in question, but in case any further articles are brought to AfD I'd like to make sure there was such a record made before deletion.
 * I do think these should be allowed to be re-created and kept at a later date, provided they're throughly expanded. I don't see any issues on notability grounds, however: cricket tours are a very important part of both of the year in cricket and of the history of two teams' relationship/rivalry/etc. AllynJ 20:15, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions.   -- --  pb30 < talk > 20:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Have added some content to the Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003, just because they are stubs does not mean they should be deleted. A national cricket tour is notable enough to deserve an article. Davewild 20:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether they're stubs, if they do not have sufficient context then they fail WP:CSD. Notability is not *really* in question here, someone simply mentioned it in passing. AllynJ 20:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete with the exception of those articles that have now attracted some expansion: Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003 and West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61. Johnlp 20:54, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Have now expanded Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2004-05, Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 1999-2000 and New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05 as well and will expand some more. Davewild 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment I have substantially expanded West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 and intend to expand it further. JH (talk page) 21:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Have now expanded Sri Lankan cricket team in Australia in 2004, Pakistani cricket team in Australia in 2002, South African cricket team in Australia in 1997-98, South African cricket team in Australia in 1993-94 and West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1992-93. Davewild 21:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge With all due respect to everybody, I'm sure these are appropriately sourceable, but I can't support a year by year history of cricket teams. Year by year for the sports?  Maybe.  Teams?  It would be better to cover their history in one article.   FrozenPurpleCube 23:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete except for those articles which have recently attracted attention. east . 718 00:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep them all with the exceptions outlined below as they are all notable and sources exist for them all. I really dislike mass nominations of articles. The 1960-61 tour of the West Indies to Australia is one of the most notable in cricket history featuring the first Tied Test and the record attendance for a test match for the Melbourne test. The Bangladeshi tour referred to featured the first tests played in Darwin and Cairns. Each of these tours has sources and is capable of being improved by having notable events added. However, the New Zealand tours before 1974-75 are the exception to the rule as no tests were played. Capitalistroadster 02:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, notability is not in question here, and is not a suitable reason for suggesting keeping these. Questioning the sources is not why these have been nominated. Nor is disliking mass nominations. These are up for lacking context, and failing WP:CSD. AllynJ 03:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 03:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this mass of contentless articles . Wikipedia is not a mass of indiscriminate information per WP:NOT. Fail WP:N and WP:A as well. Edison 03:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 03:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions.   -- John Vandenberg 03:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to Bangladeshi cricket tours of Australia, Indian cricket tours of Australia, etc. Most seasons are individually not worth individual coverage, I agree there are exceptions and those individual seasons can be recreated (it doesn't seem anyone has been in a hurry for the last four months). If multiple independent sources cannot be found for each tour than the tour wasn't notable.Garrie 03:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment CricketArchive and other official websites already provide excellent hosting for statistics and match results. If the most that these articles are going to offer is trivial cricket scores then they are not providing encyclopedic content. How about some analysis of who the tour was a milestone for? Were there any major events (Bodyline)? If nothing happened except people playing cricket then it was not a notable tour.2006-07 Ashes series is an example of encyclopedic content that is pretty much "English cricket team in Australia in 2006".Garrie 04:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Garrie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeti Hunter (talk • contribs)
 * Perhaps I should elaborate: Merge ALL articles into a single "Australian Tours" article (or perhaps "Bangladeshi tours of Australia" etc), but keep any articles which might survive AfD on their own merits.Yeti Hunter 07:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: merging does not work as explained below. We have tried it and had to undo it.  Each of these articles is notable in its own right but simply needs development and there is a mass of data out there.  The problem is that it takes time to get through so much material.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: merging does not work as explained below. We have tried it and had to undo it.  Each of these articles is notable in its own right but simply needs development and there is a mass of data out there.  The problem is that it takes time to get through so much material.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. These are mostly likely to become paraphrased summaries of better quality info elsewhere on the net.--Limegreen 04:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You must be joking. Can you give an example of better quality info on the net re some of the cricket project's fully developed articles, such as the 2005 series in England, for example?  Believe me, you cannot.  The only contender is CricketArchive in a purely statistical sense and by definition that doesn't have the narrative or description that we have.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Strong KEEP  These are notable tours between international cricket teams. The wikipedia cricket project is one of the best developed sports projects here but not everything can be done by magic.  There are plenty of sources for each of these tours but it takes time to write them up.  If an editor is embarking on a project to do so, and he's already doing a lot of work on writing up Bangladeshi first class players, then he should be allowed to do without the constant threat of his work being deleted.  These are valid stubs and will be expanded over time.  It's a lot harder writing articles than it is to glibly delete them. Nick mallory 04:32, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05 and any other which has been expanded significantly beyond the original stub. Delete any remaining as a single line stub, but if anyone is willing to commit to expanding them, they should get more time than a week to do so.- gadfium 05:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep All, properly referenced articles detailing international sporting tours at the highest level. Lankiveil 07:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC).


 * Keep (for the time being!): I think that all these articles are valid stubs. Give a fortnight and delete any article that is at current state. --Kalyan 07:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. International tours are certainly notable, and all those that are nominated are simply those that are still stubs, and haven't been expanded. There are tens of thousands of stubs on wikipedia, and they aren't deleted simply because it is hoped that eventually the article will be expanded. I believe those wanting deletion must give some reason besides "there's no context." Look at those tours that have received some attention:
 * English cricket team in Australia in 2006-07
 * English cricket team in Australia in 2002-03
 * West Indian cricket team in Australia in 2005-06
 * South African cricket team in Australia in 2005-06

Sure they tend to be the most recent tours, but isn't that the case for everything on wikipedia? Should we go around deleting all the old State and Federal election pages dating back to 1901, just because they're still stubs? Please give these some time. Recurring dreams 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete per Andrew Nixon. I will never understand the rush to fill redlinks with one line stubs. If there is not the content, time or inclination to create a decent stub (i.e. at least three of four sentences with some meaningful content), rather than a one line restatement of the title, it is better to leave the redlink alone.  If we are to think of the reader, the redlink at least tells the reader upfront that Wikipedia does not have any content on the subject.  With these one line stubs, we force the reader to move to a new article to then tell them we have no content worthy of the name.  These one line stubs are not just useless to the reader, they are harmful to the project.  Better to be upfront and admit we don't have have an article rather than create a mere placeholder article. Of course, I would keep those articles that have been expanded since nomination and have no prejudice against recreation of any of the other articles pending creation of a decent stub.  The subjects are clearly notable and should not be difficult to source. But, please, wait until you have the time and sources to create a decent stub.  -- Mattinbgn/talk 11:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Excellent points in the last two sentences. With hindsight, this is what should have been done and is what we will surely do in future if we have a similar "series scenario".  --BlackJack | talk page 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep That other sources retain records does not seem to be a good rationale for deletion of stubs that hold at least a promise of being properly developed by a clearly interested party. Time could be given to enable meritorious stubs to be more fully developed and then the remaining entries can be individually assessed. Pever 12:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep for any that are beyond one-line stubs (such as Bangladeshi cricket team in Australia in 2003) - Cricket series are inherently notable. Delete, with no bias against recreation, those without worthwhile information that are just rephrased titles. -Halo 15:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge to one decade to a page. There would be insufficient information to warrant each season having an individual page. Perhaps, for example, West Indian cricket team in Australia in the 1960s 리지강.wa.au 19:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You have only to look at West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 to see how much information is available about each tour and the potential that each one of these articles has for development. The fact that the cricket project has not yet had time to develop these articles does not mean there is a lack of available data.  The issue for the cricket project is the availability of time and resources.  Merging articles does not work and we end up splitting them again: we've been there and done it.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge - Merge it into its respective country pages - PokhranII 19:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment by original author. I created these items with the intention of developing them but there are too many to do in the short term and I do have other work as well, so they haven't been taken forward.  I agree with Andrew and others who have said the topics should exist as redlinks in a templates until someone has time to develop them to a reasonable level of content.  I do not agree with the non-cricket people who question the notability of the tour articles.  They are all notable as they involve Test cricket and / or limited overs international cricket, which is the highest tier of the sport.  Merging them into collective articles about cricket in one country will not work: that idea has already been tried with The Ashes and it doesn't work.  I'm not going to vote but I will be interested to see the outcome.  If the items are deleted, I still have them all in offline text files so I can easily recreate them if and when I have time to develop them; or if anyone wants me to provide a template for one they have only to ask on my talk page.  I would ask Arkyan to modify his list given that some of the articles are being developed and I would make a special plea re the 1960-61 West Indies tour of Australia.  All the best.  Enjoy your discussion.  --BlackJack | talk page 19:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd normally be amenable to the idea of striking from the nominated list those articles which have undergone some measure of expansion since I brought them up, as my original contention was that the articles lacked sufficient context. However as other editors have also expressed reservations regarding both the notability of the subjects and an interest in performing some kind of merge, I can no longer withdraw articles from the nomination.  It will be up to the closing admin to choose whether to remove them all based on notability concerns, just the ones without improvement due to lack of context, or keep them all per consensus, whichever outcome proves to be the best.  For what it's worth I do appreciate the effort some editors are making in trying to better the articles, in particular 1960-61 West Indies tour of Australia as you mentioned has been heavily improved.  However most of the improvements still consist of mere statistical figures without additional context, which really doesn't satisfy WP:NOT, specifically item 9 regarding statistics.  Again, for the record, my nomination has nothing to do with notability, just lack of useful context.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * "However most of the improvements still consist of mere statistical figures without additional context..." Rome wasn't built in a day. As the person who has taken on the task of expanding the article, I began with the basic statistical information, but have now expanded the introduction and the section on the First Test substantially beyond that. Descriptions of the remaining four Tests will follow as time permits, though probably not at the same lenth as the first.
 * I think those who have suggested that a single tour is not notable, and should be merged into some overarching article don.t realise (a) the importance that tours by Test-playing sides have long had in cricket history and (b) the amount that can be said about a sinle tour, which would make detailed overarching articles very long. And there is no shortage of sources, both reputable online sites and books (most notably Wisden, the annual record of the game, which has been going for well over a 100 years). JH (talk page) 20:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * You misunderstood me. I said that West Indian cricket team in Australia in 1960-61 was undergoing significant expansion (which is good), it was the other ones that have only been expanded minimally with statistics (such as New Zealand cricket team in Australia in 2004-05) that I mentioned as still not satisfying criteria.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Arkyan, it's your nomination and you can withdraw anything you want from the list. Your nomination is based on a sound premise (whether I agree with your view or not) and you should not be swayed from that by people who try to introduce their own variations to your purpose.  The choices are simple: delete these articles because they lack content or keep them for a period to be agreed (indefinite or otherwise) to allow the cricket project to develop them.  If other people start chucking in ideas about notability and merging which divert your purpose then it is up to them to propose their own nominations.  Otherwise no one is going to understand what the nomination is about.  --BlackJack | talk page 06:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete those which are just a one-sentence restatement of the title (plus some boilerplate templates and/or categories). But they should be recreated when someone actually wants to write some content. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as empty. These articles for the most part have no content.  If the result here is to delete, the template also needs to go since it is only a what links here mill.  Merge would have been an option, but without content there is nothing to merge, in most cases.  Vegaswikian 05:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: You clearly do not understand the purpose of templates which are a useful guide for readers. If a tour template is placed in a developed tour article it provides the reader with useful, quick information about other tours and if some of those are redlinked then he knows there was a tour that year but WP hasn't got an article yet.  Please remember that everything the editors do is for the benefit of the readers and templates do help the reader.  --BlackJack | talk page 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Mass delete; such esotera belongs on a dedicated sports site.--Mike18xx
 * Comment: phrases like "such esotera" do not help the discussion and your suggestion makes no sense, especially in the light of the stuff about stub deletion on your user page. You need to read WP:NOT wherein you will see that even secondary levels of domestic sporting competition are accepted as notable.  The subject-matter of these articles is international competition at the highest level of a major world sport.  Can we therefore please drop all this rubbish about notability?  If an article about a Test cricket competition is not notable then neither is one about the Superbowl or the "World" Baseball Series or the European Cup or the Olympics: we would have to delete every single article on the site about sports competitions.  --BlackJack | talk page 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply 50 "from" countries x 50 "playing at" countries x 100+ years x every sport under the sun = how many bazillion articles? While the internet is indeed theoretically infinite, there is a limit to how much a generalist site is willing to indulge; the criteria for exceeding the limit may be vague, but some things are arguably a lot more excessive than others. Mass compilations of sports trivia really do belong on a site devoted to it, and would be especially better served on a site where users are able to perform complex statistical comparison analysis of the sort just not possible with mediawiki. ... But this is all beside the point that the items being AfD'd here aren't even articles; they're just nearly blank pages awaiting the arrival of statistics. If I create a hundred articles which are all templates of each other, and then don't put anything in them, they're going to disappear on me. If I were to hazard a guess, I don't think their creator realized how big of a chore this was all going to be -- the poor guy would be typing for MONTHS.--Mike18xx 07:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete those that exist purely as one-line stubs per CSD A1/A3, Keep or Merge (depending on notability consensus) any that have been developed beyond that for now. Stubs are fine, but these are simply a restatement of the title. Orderinchaos 16:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Have reorganised the list into two columns which are the above one-line stubs, and a third which has undergone development. I hope this in some way helps the process of resolving the fate of these articles. Orderinchaos 16:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I like the reorganized list, it should be a little easier on the closing admin depending on how it goes down.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: yes, it's a very good idea that reinforces the point of the nomination which is about level of content and not about notability or any other vague issue. All the admin has to decide is if the under-developed articles should be set aside for now until the cricket project has time to reintroduce them as developed articles; or if they should be retained to give the cricket project time to develop them as they currently stand.  --BlackJack | talk page 05:55, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Precedent? This case was exactly the same as the one here and the verdict was keep.  --BlackJack | talk page 18:36, 19 June 2007 (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.