Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Alec Bedser


 * 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. In this particular discussion there is a consensus that there are policy based reasons to delete this article rather than to merge it. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Alec Bedser

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NLIST which says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Plenty of space on the main article to merge prose, if any. Also, note that there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm  (talk)  07:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:04, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Alec Bedser (removing details of the batsmen dismissed). No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT, and would enhance the content there. International five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy achievement, and by definition, a list of them within the main article has the necessary context and explanation, so does not fail NOTSTATS in this regard. Unfortunately the nom seems to be misrepresenting the consensus of the cited RFC, which closed: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." wjematherplease leave a message... 14:19, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete with the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page, in particular the batter's dismissed and economy rate are really not needed. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:37, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:RAWDATA. "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." This article is just a list of scores from ESPNCricinfo and has no independent sources covering these individual achievements as a set. Agree with nom that there should be no precedent to include these on players' articles. Ajf773 (talk) 08:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note to AFD closer recent afds were closed as Merge - Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Faf du Plessis (2nd nomination); Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Marvan Atapattu; Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Cheteshwar Pujara, Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Hussey; Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Desmond Haynes; Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Colin Cowdrey; Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe; Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond; Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Justin LangerDavidstewartharvey (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * The following also resulted in DELETE: Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim, Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga and Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan while these following articles resulted in redirection to player's article: Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. With all of these lists of centuries or five-wicket hauls for players we are getting mixed outcomes. Admin needs to allow greater discussions (longer than a week) on all AfD's without resulting to arbitrary outcomes. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Need more votes for possibly a result here.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:55, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per those above. BD2412  T 06:35, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:NOTSTATS, and per my comments at a previous similar AfD: We're Wikipedia, not Cricinfo, this provides nothing but INDISCRIMINATE statistics, and "not every goal scored or match played..." (WP:NOTDIARY) is also relevant (with the necessary vocabulary changes for cricket). Keeping as redirect is also out of the question per WP:PANDORA, since there's no reason this kind of article should exist: those interested in such statistics would do well to be pointed directly to Cricinfo, which usually contains the most up-to-date information, and is also free of potential errors caused by vandalism; and is the cited source anyway. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:35, 18 February 2021 (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.