Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of New Zealand Test cricket victories


 * 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. Seems awfully close to a narrow consensus to delete by my reckoning -- but two previous administrators have decided that there was insufficient consensus to close and chose to relist. The discussion hasn't really moved on from there.  A  Train talk 14:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

List of New Zealand Test cricket victories

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A long list of cruft that fails WP:GNG. Having a list of wins for any sporting team is not notable in itself.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 13:17, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons I gave when I Prodded it. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 18:06, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete this list and move the information to the appropriate History of cricket in New Zealand article. – Ianblair23 (talk) 00:49, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't do that per WP:MAD AIR corn (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Then it's a merge, which is not a delete! -- Shudde  talk 10:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTCRUFT/WP:FANCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Trim and Rename to List of New Zealand Tests and merge in information from List of New Zealand Test cricket records. This article is basically a list of tests anyway and having a list of tests should be an acceptable and informative split from the already notable History of cricket in New Zealand (which would be too large if this information was merged directly into it). AIR corn (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATS <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> GreenCricket  (talk)  05:58, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename and Merge in content per Aircorn. A history of New Zealand cricket results is notable; so merging in losses and draws would be easily better than deleting all this content! I find some of the arguments a bit weak, basically saying it's cruft, but this is untrue, it's just incomplete. We have lists of 5-wicket hauls for individual players, but a list of victories by a Test-playing team is cruft? Really? -- Shudde  talk 10:53, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Can someone explain to me which of the four points at WP:NOTSTATS (which the delete votes have all linked to) this list violates? Certainly not points 1, 2, or 4, and point 3 states "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics" -- but this is not unexplained at all, it's very well defined. -- Shudde  talk 10:57, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 01:00, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * (Reply to Shudde, above) NOTSTATS does not say that those are the only things that violate the policy. In this case, the policy violation is explained in the words "As explained in above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia", which refers you to "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject". --Guy Macon (talk) 08:10, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Cricket is very much a game of stats. Almost all our featured lists are collections of stats (see Featured lists. This is a relatively poor article, but that is not a reason for deletion. Also no one is currently saying the article should stay as it is. The concept of a list of tests is notable however, especially if it is considered a split from a countries history (I think it is notable in its own right, but am currently pushing for a much lower bar). I think s point is that this is more valid as a topic than many of the cricket lists currently accepted. AIR corn (talk) 08:02, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah sorry I that doesn't explain it at all. So being verifiable and true doesn't mean it can't be deleted? Okay, but that doesn't explain why this list should be does it? As for the second quote, how is this excessive detail compared to the many other cricket-related lists on the project? I don't understand how this is different or even worse. Editors can't just quote WP:NOTSTATS whenever they don't like a list and expect others to be convinced. Most complaints about this list stem from it's quality and it's current state, but that is not the same as notability. Let us focus on the later and leave the former until later can we? -- Shudde  talk 17:17, 1 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Clean up at least (I can help), neutral on deletion.  J 947 (c)  22:49, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Do NOT delete This is a list of extremely notable events in NZ cricket history. Every NZ test victory makes the front page of the sports section of every metropolitan newspaper. If the victory was over a quality team such as Australia or England that makes the front page of every metropolitan newspaper in NZ.

There are many articles about cricket on Wikipedia with little or no "notability" such as:
 * 2015–16 Plunket Shield season - just a list of some first class games in NZ in 2015-16 that will soon be forgotten.
 * 2015 Cricket World Cup officials - a list of officials whose participation in this event has already been forgotten.
 * List of Sussex County Cricket Club grounds - a list that is of little interest to anyone outside of Sussex.

This is not just a list of stats. The following articles are far more a list of statistics than a "List of New Zealand Test cricket victories" and of much less notable events:


 * List of cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut
 * List of Pakistan cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut
 * List of Bangladesh cricketers who have taken five-wicket hauls on Test debut

The 6 other far less notable articles I have listed should not be deleted either.

The "List of New Zealand Test cricket victories" article certainly needs to be cleaned up/prettied up though.
 * User:Romiben did not sign their post above. FYI They are also the article's creator. Ajf773 (talk) 10:09, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And they're other stuff exists argument seems to be aimed solely at articles I've created or expanded. Wickets on debut is a rare stat, whereas a complete list of every match won is unnecessary. <b style="color:#CCCC00">Joseph</b><b style="color:#00FF00">2302</b> (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 19:10, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The existence and safety of these and other articles highlights the impression that this nomination is more on quality than nobility. If I was so inclined I could nominate many of those articles with vague WP:CRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS arguments. [{WP:GNG]] is hard to apply to lists as they are almost always forks (or potential forks) from notable articles. With deletion (apart from a few occasions) you need to judge the topic on its potential, not its current standard. AIR corn (talk) 22:08, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:31, 2 May 2017 (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.