Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International cricket records


 * 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. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 03:31, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

International cricket records

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

An arbitrary set of lists which selects records without any clear criteria and amalgamates the three types of cricket into one record set - which is rarely done within the sport, per WP:CRUFT. Lacks context to the individual records per WP:NOTSTATS and all records can be more reliably found in other places - CricInfo for example - so WP:NOTMIRROR applies. Only one source is offered so WP:ONESOURCE also kicks in and no actual evidence of notability is offered. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:17, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * To add, a very similar article was deleted last November - see Articles for deletion/World records in International cricket. This appears to be a partial recreation of that article, although not, as far as I can tell, by the same editor Blue Square Thing (talk) 10:23, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 10:37, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Not a valid argument. See WP:PERNOM Yashovardhan (talk) 11:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes it is. The page you link to is an essay. There's no point repeating verbatim what BST (hey, that's tonight in the UK, chuckle!) has said, when he's summed up the issues with the article perfectly.  Lugnuts  Precious bodily fluids 18:50, 25 March 2017 (UTC)


 * weak keep WP:ONESOUCE is not a valid criteria for deletion. Also WP:NOTMIRROR is not valid here as the article is not a mirror and is fit for an encyclopedia. Please use WP:SNOWBALL and realize that this article is of use to many people. I agree that WP:NOTSTATS is applicable but please realize that it could set a dangerous precedence and result in deletion of various other articles as well. Rather than deletion, the article should be improved and more sources be added Yashovardhan (talk) 11:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete changing my own point, delete as per WP:NOSTATS. No point keeping a mirror article. Moreover, since the consensus is looking in the favour of delete and the author himself wants it deleted, it could be speedy deleted as well Yashovardhan (talk) 12:28, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Arbitrary selection of stats uplifted from espnCricinfo without any noticeable selection criteria, appears to be totally random and of low significance on a world cricketing level. Also a breach of WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. Ajf773 (talk) 05:32, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I am also supporting the ideas of other wikipedians to delete this article.Abishe(talk)


 * 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.