Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England cricket team Test results (1946–59)


 * 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. While several participants believe the article(s) should be deleted based on WP:NOSTATS, several others pointed to very similar articles that had been improved to the point of...encyclopedia-ness... Even the user who made the original nomination changed his mind. Joyous! | Talk 01:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

England cricket team Test results (1946–59)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I am also nominating the following related pages because they all fail the same criteria:

'''Delete all. See change of vote below'''. (Information is more readily available in specialist online cricket sites and should not be repeated here per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:MIRROR, WP:DIRECTORY. Jack | talk page 19:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC) Jack | talk page 19:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons already given. There's no attempt to do anything other than throw stats at a page here. Blue Square Thing (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:MIRROR has no relationship whatsoever to this page or to deletion, and the whole of Wikipedia, per WP:V and WP:NOR, consists of information that is available elsewhere. We need a better explanation of why this should be deleted. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:NOTSTATS { MordeKyle }   &#9762;  21:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all. WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR. Wikipedia is not espnCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 04:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per all of the above comments.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 07:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete all Per above, and my comments on similar discussions. Joseph2302 08:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: If we're deleting these, then we should also bundle in England cricket team Test results (1877–1914) and England cricket team Test results (1920–39) as well. Just because the other lists are effectively stubs, and those two are not should not factor in. We don't delete based strictly on content, but on potential content. All the lists that have been nominated have the potential to be similar to the two I've mentioned, so all should be considered equally. Harrias talk 17:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello, . Sorry, I don't agree. Those two articles have had a lot of work done on them and they are well beyond the "bare statistics" label. The others have the potential, as you say, but there has been no progress towards that potential. The point is that they have been there too long as stats and stats only. I know we are short of members now but we cannot allow statistics to just sit there indefinitely. As for what is wrong with cricket statistics, they breach WP:IINFO and they confuse non-cricket readers. Furthermore, they are of minimal, if any, use to cricket followers too unless they have a context and an article without narrative has no context. Jack | talk page 20:39, 16 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, but improve The deletion seems to be based on point #14 of the reasons for deletion: "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia". That links to WP:NOT, which features most of the above complaints. At the bottom of that page, the section entitled "When you wonder what to do" suggest a bullet point list, and above "Nominating the page for deletion" is "Changing the content of an article (normal editing)". I would contest that given that the 1877 and 1920 lists demonstrate that these articles have potential to be "well beyond the "bare statistics" label" the nominated articles should be tagged, but left for future expansion. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and often without a stub to start someone off, an article or list will never have a chance to reach its full potential. Harrias talk 23:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: The nominator closed this discussion with a keep result, stating that the nomination was withdrawn, (diff) but this is not valid, because several users have !voted to delete the article. See WP:SKCRIT for more information. North America1000 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Strongly agrees with Harrias. It can be improved as it needs a good prose so we can categorize it as stub but deletion looks awkward.  GreenCricket  (talk)  13:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:07, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Change of vote. Sorry, I guess I didn't follow due process there. As nominator, I have accepted the arguments put forward by Harrias and GreenCricket. I now think we should keep these articles per their reasoning. Thanks. Jack | talk page 09:51, 19 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Sure these all need improvement, but WP is a work in progress, and this discussion already noted that similar articles featuring Tests from 1877 onwards and from 1920 to 1939 have been improved. So not only do we have other articles in what might be regarded as a series that includes these articles, (so it'd be an incomplete series if we deleted them), but we also have a model for the kind of improvement that can be effective. Just now needs to be done and I for one am willing to wait. Johnlp (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:24, 21 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge the content minus the lists themselves into relevant other articles e.g. History of the England cricket team to 1939 and History of the England cricket team from 1945, both of which could do with improving and would benefit from the source contented in the leads of these lists. The lists of every match are totally unnecessary per WP:NOTSTATS. Joseph2302</b> (talk) 19:02, 21 November 2016 (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.