Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Danish Kaneria


 * 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. Randykitty (talk) 17:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Danish Kaneria

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Failed to find any sources where his fifers are discussed as a set or group, so fails WP:NLIST, WP:RAWDATA. Also, note that User talk:Vibhijain who created this list has been blocked for socking. Störm  (talk)  16:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:11, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Danish Kaneria after removing all trivial/incidental details (list of batsmen dismissed, match results, economy, etc.). Per WP:SPLIT there are no issues preventing inclusion in the main article. Per nom, the article also fails WP:NLIST and does not stand on its own. As such this comprehensively fails criterion 3c of Featured list criteria ("...meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; does not violate the content-forking guideline, does not largely duplicate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article."). wjematherplease leave a message... 16:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep There have been a few instances where the subject took 5 wickets in a single match. It needs to be detailed in a separate page. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 12:02, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep there's a reason it's a featured list, which is because the article presents the information well in the lead. It's not just a list of random stats, it's a list with clear inclusion/exclusion criteria which is summarised in the text. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Nothing is set in stone, we can't keep just because it is FL while it is clear this badly fails WP:NLIST. Fate should be same as was in previous discussions such as Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Terry Alderman, Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Vernon Philander, Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Rangana Herath, etc. Störm   (talk)  20:26, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

*Keep. Featured material which failed inclusion guidelines wouldn't be featured material otherwise. Unless his name is Lewis. StickyWicket (talk) 16:53, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Where are published sources, not generated queries from statsguru, that discusses the subject as a set or group? Please cite a single such source and I'll happily withdraw. Störm   (talk)  20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that this is a featured list. The problem is that the sourcing is largely confined to individual match scorecards (not even reports), data lists that have had to be extracted from CricInfo's search function and the CricInfo profile of the player. Those aren't really suitable in my view - match reports might actually discuss that this is his Xth five-wicket haul, for example. Beyond this, is there anything that discusses the five-wicket hauls taken by him in one place? A bunch of non-featured lists with similar titles were deleted not so long ago - see Articles for deletion/List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Alec Bedser for example. I'm no longer certain of my decision there, but the list would have been deleted anyway. The level of sourcing on many of those articles would have been little different to this one: the leads won't probably be as good, but they could easily have mimicked the sourcing here with about half an hours work - it's only a summary of the stats using scorecards and the profile afterall. I can't see why those articles aren't notable if this one is - if it's just a case of improving the lead to make it longer and use the same scorecards then let me know and I'll make a start recreating some of them I guess and send them to FL.
 * If this were to be merged, can we please remove the lists of batters dismissed and the economy rate - there was a discussion about this at the cricket wiki project some time ago and the general consensus was that they were unnecessary (see here and here (with a bonus previous discussion here)) Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * BST, a bundle of thanks for linking previous discussions here. Störm   (talk)  18:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep Per Joseph2302, being a featured list seems to suggest that the sourcing is good enough to pass guidelines. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:39, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment. Also get uneasy when G3 is possibly hinted at in the nom. Don't know if you're letting us know the article creator is blocked or if because they're blocked it should be a reason to delete, only this was hinted at by another user the other week (though that was a clear case of keep and their suggestion of G3 was done out of desperation to bulldoze consensus). If G3 is the hint, the problem is if, say I were to be blocked, would that mean John Manners (cricketer) would be deleted? Also having looked at this list, it isn't the best FA I've seen (and that's no disrespect to the user who nominated it who does great work on subcontinent cricket), but the lead is a little lacking so I'm changing my vote to merge to Danish Kaneria. And as BST alluded to, better FA lists have been deleted of late. StickyWicket (talk) 22:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete (or merge) Nowhere is "being a featured list" in our deletion policy. Sources 4-5 and 7-28 are primary sources reporting statistics. Of the other 4, 2 don't even mention him, 1 doesn't mention his 5 wicket hauls (in the section that is a secondary source), and the last one, the only secondary source to mention his 5 wicket hauls, devotes two sentences to it. The sole claim to notability for this list rests upon those two sentences. Needless to say, 2 sentences in an article is not enough to pass WP:NLIST regardless of its featured status. Zoozaz1 talk  22:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm thinking along the same lines of Blue Square Thing - are there any additional sources out there which support this being a stand-alone article? SportingFlyer  T · C  22:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Other than references to matches covered by ESPNCricinfo, this article is just statscruft. Ajf773 (talk) 08:45, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge All such individual lists should be merged into one page, "List of international cricket five-wicket hauls". The significance of individual lists is not great enough for them to have separate pages. Santosh L (talk) 11:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep per Joseph2302. extra 999  ( talk ) 15:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep as per Joseph2302. CreativeNorth (talk) 15:48, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets minimum 15 international cut-off agreed by WP:CRIC for lists of individual international five wicket hauls. The player has total 15 five for. &mdash;  A.A Prinon  Conversation 14:06, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And said to show any source that displays his five-wicket hauls in a group. I have found a source. This is as follows:
 * 1. http://www.howstat.com/cricket/statistics/players/PlayerNotables.asp?PlayerID=2252&s=1. Retrived from HowStat and its reliable. Besides, there are in ESPN Statsguru. I will also try to find more and inform later.A.A Prinon (talk) 14:12, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Such thresholds for lists were never formally agreed upon; even if they had been, WP:LOCALCONSENSUS does not overrule wider community consensus as laid down in policies and guidelines. Secondly, we require sources that cover the subject in depth, i.e. they must provide more than bare statistical listings. wjematherplease leave a message... 14:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's just another list of stats. It's almost one that we could provide a link to in the player's article rather than, err, have an article that essentially copies and pastes the list (and, of course, adds some more OR at the same time). Given the way this is headed, I'll start work on re-creating some of the deleted ones shall I? Cause if this is a FL quality article, any of those could be with half an hours work. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:08, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm   (talk)  20:11, 24 April 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.