Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Glamorgan v Northamptonshire 4 September 2005

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. IceKarma&#x0950; 03:28, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Glamorgan v Northamptonshire 4 September 2005
Please see discussion page on general inclusion of sports results.

A very NN cricket game. Wikipedia is not a scoreboard Delete --Aranda56 06:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

There are many of those nn matches in here Category:2005 English cricket season matches could someone group up some of those matches and place them in VFD. Wikipedia is not a scoreboard. --Aranda56 06:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep per Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005 and Votes_for_deletion/Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005. We have debated this before and agreed (well, mostly agreed), that since this is a convenient method for writing the season wrap-ups for each team and competition while the season is in progress, it should stay until the season is over at least. (yes, I'm the original author). And the 2005 English cricket season in itself is notable, as can be seen by its coverage on BBC. Sam Vimes 07:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as per every previous time this has been discussed. --Ngb?!? 07:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This has been discussed before. Stephen Turner 08:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep This has been disucussed to death and they have not been deleted. Please let it go. CalJW 09:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep This is rapidly becoming very silly.  [[Sam Korn ]] 11:03, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep --PopUpPirate 11:16, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Ian &equiv; talk 11:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kappa 12:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete -- It seems POV, but -- Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information/News reports -- this article appears to be a firsthand news report on a particular game that will almost certainly not be notable. --Mysidia (talk) 16:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can guarantee it's not a first-hand report. The author is Norweigan.   [[Sam Korn ]] 18:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * The article presents itself as a first-hand report, and does not identify a source for the report other than itself, which is what matters, regardless of the nationality of the editor who wrote the text. Another issue, which is verifiability -- articles on Wikipedia need to cite sources; Wikipedia's not the place to put original research, essays, etc -- any major point of views mentioned ultimately need a a source, and things  like firsthand reports have a problem here, as well. Wikipedia's role is to document the notable points of view, not to form or describe new opinions about subjects written about in articles, but this article cites no source for the description given, only a stray link to score numbers. --Mysidia (talk) 22:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, that link entirely verifies the entire article. It may not be clear to someone who doesn't understand exactly how cricket works, but that isn't our fault.  The information is true, the information is verifiable.  It is even going to be merged soon.  Are you going to continue to ignore that fact?   [[Sam Korn ]] 22:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Oh really, what verifies this statement: Northamptonshire Steelbacks got themselves into a commanding position before rain intervened at Sophia Gardens? --Mysidia (talk) 00:36, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It is verified by the scorecard - they scored 282 runs in the space of 45 overs - which, FYI, is a fairly high score in cricket. Glamorgan then scored much slower, and lost a wicket, hence the commanding position. Sam Vimes 05:35, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Is Wikipedia to be cluttered up with every non-notable local sports result in the world? How many of the Keep's above are neutral and not cricket fans? Anthony Appleyard 18:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * It's true. It's verifiable.  It's going to be merged into a bigger article soon enough.  What are people's issues with these pages?  As for the neutrality thing, anyone is allowed to place their comments on an AfD nomination.  It just happens that many of these nominations have happened before, so cricket fans on Wikipedia are used to coming together to deal with this kind of stuff.  Neutrality is quite clearly not an issue.  If users were neutral, after all, they wouldn't have an opinion to keep or to delete! (I jest, by the way—I know you meant that the above users are biased.)  What harm does keeping this article do?   [[Sam Korn ]] 18:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * If all those cricket scores get Merge it is ok for me and i willing to change my vote. I know for sure that most of those games should not have a individual article. --Aranda56 19:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, they will get merged, and soon. That isn't, by the way, as a consequence of AfD decisions, rather because that was always what was going to happen.   [[Sam Korn ]] 19:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I am willing to help with the merge but how? I dont know much about cricket so I dont know how to merge those types of articles. --Aranda56 20:21, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * They need to be merged in a particularly sympathetic way. Don't worry, Wikiproject Cricket will sort it all out!  They need to be merged in different ways for different articles, to make the whole page work together.  You needn't worry about helping, as it's a job for someone who knows about cricket!  Best,  [[Sam Korn ]] 20:28, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * For exactly this kind of project userspace has been invented. Move to userspace or just delete, this isn't cricketpedia, or scorewiki. Pilatus 23:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * These were originally in subpages, and that was ruled as inappropriate. So they were moved to articles.  These are notable sporting events, with international attention.  They are real, they are verifiable.  Why the vendetta???  Guettarda 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Because criket is loathed in every country outside the 4-5 where it is actually played? --193.166.11.251 07:56, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete of non-notable reports of minor sports events, for the reasons stated in Articles_for_deletion/Northamptonshire_v_Somerset_29_June_2005 -- MCB 21:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Have you even read the rest of this page? Or, for that matter, the other one?  This seems like an opinion given out of nothing other than ignorance of what this page is and will be.  Please read before giving your opinion.  [[Sam Korn ]] 21:48, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why, as a matter of fact I have, and if you have read my comment in the other AfD, I have no idea, beyond a personal attack, why you would believe my position is "ignorant". What no one has convinced me of is why Wikipedia should contain reports of daily ordinary sports events in general, or that English league cricket match results are notable in specific, regardless of whether they are in their own articles, merged into a big article, or whatever. There are far better ways of organizing and presenting this material on the Web; create a SportsWiki or a CricketWiki, but please don't clutter Wikipedia with daily sports results. -- MCB 02:43, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information/News reports. WMMartin 22:06, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per all the sane people here. &hearts;purplefeltangel (talk) &hearts; (Contributions) 23:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep!!!! Not again.  This is nonsense.  See all the other VFD debates.  Guettarda 00:10, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Important Comment: I have created a centralized discussion for this issue, in an attempt to reach consensus and not have the issue raised in a large number of individual AfDs. Please go to Centralized discussion/Sports results and discuss on the discussion page. -- MCB 03:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, having this again is not productive. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Yet more shamelss sportscruft. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. / Peter Isotalo 12:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We have discussed this before and agreed keep each time. Remember that this article is part of a series about the 2005 English cricket season. Effectively WP:Cricket is creating an almanack that will, in time, exceed Wisden in depth (though probably not renown). It's an excellent source that I use myself for checking on the season. Series of articles such as this are good for Wikipedia - and isn't that what we're all here for - improving WP? jguk 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Disturbing to say the least. If WP:Cricket wants to be taken seriously, I suggest you first lobby for some sort of cricket clause in the official policy. Doing it this way is not improving WP; it's creating an internal CricketPedia without establishing a reasonable consensus. We have WikiCities for those sort of things. / Peter Isotalo 20:49, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. One of WP's strongest points (and one of the reasons for its great success) is its willingness to accept all information. Consider how we're a great resource for Pokemon information, and info on Star Trek. There's even a Klingon WP! This sort of in depth info is what makes WP great. If you don't want to read this section, that's fine - but it's useful info for those who do want to read it, jguk 20:57, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Jon is quite right. I also would note that WikiCities would not allow a wiki that covers area that Wikipedia could also cover.  Your two points: creating an internal CricketPedia without establishing a reasonable consensus see WP:BOLD; I suggest you first lobby for some sort of cricket clause in the official policy oh come on.  We are no more special than anyone else.  I don't mind any subject having this kind of in-depth topic, even Pokemon.  So long as it is verifiable, and at least borderline encyclopaedic, it should be kept.   [[Sam Korn ]] 22:16, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep once again, see previous arguments. Hiding talk 18:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. The previous arguments border on nonsense. --Calton | Talk 21:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete hint hint!  Grue   13:08, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete Dottore So 16:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - See above. Also see previous VfDs, all of which lost. --Peripatetic 13:47, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Ditto. Tintin 10:08, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. ··gracefool |&#9786; 14:03, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.