Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used in cricket (2nd nomination)


 * 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. This comes down to WP:LISTCRUFT vs. WP:GNG. Proponents of the keeping the article have provided several sources to their point, yet those citing LISTCRUFT (which should be noted is a mere essay) have little more than the link to the essay itself. Therefor, I believe that consensus exists to close this AfD as keep. (non-admin closure) Kharkiv07  ( T ) 02:18, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

List of nicknames used in cricket
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A non-encyclopedic list which is really just a collection of names, with no encyclopedic value. It's listcruft, suffers from some recentism, and there's no evidence that a list of nicknames is actually notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:42, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. GNG is satisfied, by Jiminy. BBC: "Do you know your cricket nicknames?", The Independent: "Cricket: Nicknames for the new era", even Bleacher Report: "Ranking the Top 30 Nicknames in Cricket History". Clarityfiend (talk) 22:55, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per not trivia. Nicknames can easily be mentioned in the main articles of teams/players, they do not require a list. PinchHittingLeggy (talk) 23:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on that point. This could be said of almost any list. Tintin 00:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * not trivia is inappropriate and irrelevant as it refers to sections in articles consisting of miscellaneous, unrelated items. What we have here is a separate list of related items; a quite different thing. Andrew D. (talk) 00:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - listcruft —Мандичка YO 😜 08:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

*Delete per - This sort of shite belongs on Wikia not here!, Obvious LISTCRUFT. – Davey 2010 Talk 00:33, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment – Here's another source: Wisden Dictionary of Cricket. North America1000 03:49, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Clarityfiend's rationale and the additional source found by NA. This is also a list with a clear inclusion criteria, with the majority of the entries being sourced. Compare this with some articles in Category:Nicknames in sports, which are lacking in sources for the main. Everything on WP is triva/listcruft to the next person.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per above demonstration of meeting GNG. Would like to see every line sourced, but it's pretty well referenced at the moment. Recentism is an issue but AFD isn't meant to be for cleanup.  The advantage of this list, vs finding them in each and every article, is that it's a convenient place to search if you don't know who had a certain nickname.  Should only list commonly used nicknames though, not every headline writer's one-off names. And our main online source of info, ESPNCricInfo, includes nicknames on their profile pages - ie Alfie/JL. The-Pope (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * This coming from the creator of the sort of shite like List of Friday Download episodes....  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:37, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * - Ah I walked straight in to that...., To be fair technically the only thing I did was move that from the main article to a new one but point taken, I agree it is shite and if nominating it would make you feel better than be my guest!. – Davey 2010 Talk 14:46, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hehe, I meant that in good humour (and I think it was taken that way!) In other words, one man's "sort of shite" is the next man's slaved over masterpiece that could one day get a GA or FA status. I've already put my case forward on why I think this AfD should end as keep, so I won't repeat that.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 14:49, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Haha to be honest I did wonder if you were being serious but you are absolutely right there ... I should probably choose my words more wisely in future!, Well I've struck the !vote before someone actually gets pissed off and no doubt takes me to ANI . – Davey 2010 Talk 14:57, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jkudlick t c s 08:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT SageGreenRider (talk) 14:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:LISTCRUFT is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and so is worthless here. Andrew D. (talk) 00:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep. This discussion has clearly demonstrated that this topic has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 10:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Clearly passes WP:LISTN, e.g. Cricketing Nicknames. Andrew D. (talk) 17:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * and another whole article published today: http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/950133.html The-Pope (talk) 23:44, 9 December 2015 (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.