Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Craig McDermott


 * 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 merge to Craig McDermott. Black Kite (talk) 22:11, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Craig McDermott

 * – ( 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". 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)  07:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 09:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge - Firstly, the claim that the RfC had a consensus to cover all cricket articles is a complete lie, the closing administrator noted that "here'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". Secondly, I simply don't believe that there is no source that would compile his five wicket hauls together, but the obvious solution is to merge the list of five wicket hauls to Craig McDermott. A valid alternative to deletion that is not inappropriate. The sourcing is entirely fine for an article outside of a list. Deletion is a poor and lazy option here and editors need to find other solutions rather than just nominating the article for deletion.The nominator has a clear bias against particular cricket articles and needs to stop nominating them for deletion when a clear alternative exists and they are required to consider those before deleting. Deus et lex Deus et lex (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to Craig McDermott (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... 14:14, 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) 16:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Lorstaking 16:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Nom is suggesting delete, not merge. Ajf773 (talk) 08:36, 28 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) 08:36, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment - as mentioned in other AfDs, putting statistics into a main article does not violate WP:STATS. You need to stop making that argument. Deus et lex (talk) 10:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge to player's article. Tessaracter (talk) 11:38, 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) 10:47, 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) 08:53, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HawkAussie (talk) 03:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge I am compelled by the arguments for merging the article. Tessaracter (talk) 12:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge per those above. BD2412  T 06:35, 17 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.