Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of English cricketers (1787–1825)


 * 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn and nominator blocked as a WP:SOCK. No issue if any non-sock editor wishes to re-nominate these pages for any (valid) reason. Thanks (non-admin closure)  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 14:18, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

List of English cricketers (1787–1825)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete six lists as above. Manual of Style/Trivia sections begins by advocating that editors must avoid creating lists of miscellaneous information. Within WP:IINFO, item 3 deprecates excessive listings of unexplained statistics. Although these lists in their present form contain minimal statistics, it is evident that the main source of information must be the CricketArchive database, which is entirely statistical. The books cited as sources cover limited timespans and, in any case, they are also statistical because the overwhelming majority of players are mentioned only as names on match scorecards. This was the problem with Chitty (cricketer).

While I believe that these lists breach WP:IINFO and the trivia guideline, my rationale for nominating them is that they are lists for the sake of being lists. I do not believe they will ever be completed because their creator abandoned them and it appears that no one else is interested in making the effort necessary to find all qualifying players, dates and teams. The lists do not add value and are of little practical use to readers in their present unfinished state. They should have been begun as drafts and not promoted until they were well developed.

This entry replaces my original one which I have struck out below. I have decided to focus on policy, now that I know a little more about how this process operates, as the basis for the nomination. Thank you. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I think it is unlikely that work on this list will ever be completed given the effort that will be needed to find all qualifying players, dates and teams. Its creator evidently abandoned it eighteen months ago and no one else seems at all interested. That's because it does not add value and is just a list for the sake of being a list. It is far too big, attempting to cover too long a timespan.

It resurfaced a couple of weeks ago as a possible redirect target following the Chitty (cricketer) case but that idea is not being pursued as a neater and more suitable solution has been found whereby any redirects are to relevant articles whose notability and usefulness are not in doubt.

There are five more lists, forming a continuing series, and those are in an even worse state than this one. I think all six should go. The other five are:



Thanks. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus   Esculentus  15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus   Esculentus  15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus   Esculentus  15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus   Esculentus  15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus   Esculentus  15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus   Esculentus  15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ― Abelmoschus   Esculentus  15:38, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep all (and by the way, the other articles have not had an AfD banner placed so should not be deleted in any case until this has been in place for the prescribed time). In the nominated article, every entry is a blue link, so amounts to a list of notable cricketers and thus meets WP:NNC.  The other articles are explicitly lists of players who have played in first class matches, which is at the level of presumed notability per WP:NCRICKET.  In both cases, it is untrue that "it is unlikely  that work on this list will ever be completed".  There is clear inclusion criteria and a finite, well-defined, number of possible entries.  Lists of cricketers "fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes" as expounded in WP:NLIST.
 * The nomination is full of non-policy-based rationales for deletion; WP:NOTFINISHED, WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:NOTIMELIMIT, the creator abandoned it, and "does not add value" sounds like a WP:IDLI argument to me. As for the argument that it is too big, WP:SPINOUT is the relevant guideline here, which calls for splitting the article, not deletion.  In short, the closer should be pretty much discount the proposer's arguments as irrelevant. SpinningSpark 17:59, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to place a banner on each of these pages and keep them in this same discussion. I'll look into that and see if the introductory page helps. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 06:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep. The cricketers concerned satisfy WP:NCRICKET and the lists are valid, if in need of improvement. --Michig (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per . Harrias  talk 11:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment To everyone referencing WP:NCRIC and its metapages: the argument you're looking for is at WP:LISTN, no more, no less—particularly as WP:CRIC is clearly corrupt. Happy editing, ——  SerialNumber  54129  11:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:IDONTLIKEIT much? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That page does not say what you think it says, but don't let that get in the way of good old misrepresentation. WP:DGAF applies. I am actually pointing out an argument based on policy rather than a local project, which some would say was a Good Thing. I say nothing about LISTN being good enough for you :D ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTN isn't a policy. --Michig (talk) 12:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's part of WP:N. ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:N isn't a policy either. --Michig (talk) 12:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:NLIST. Question whether the nominator is trying to circumnavigate the non-deletion of Chitty, which was merged into this article and now they want to delete the article, thus deleting the Chitty article too. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 11:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:ASPERSIONS much? :p  ——  SerialNumber  54129  12:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Can I withdraw the nomination? It looks as if the policies override my concerns about the state of the article. If they are to be kept, I'd suggest shorter timespans and limit each player to one list, the period in which he made his debut. Thanks. Scribbles by The Scribbler (talk) 12:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.