Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of works by cricket historians and writers


 * 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The result was snowy keep / withdrawn - technically can't be withdrawn once there is a delete opinion, but since that was essentially an agreement with the nominator, it can probably be set aside. Non-admin closure. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

List of works by cricket historians and writers

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete. Pointless list which includes all sorts of subjective entries and thereby breaches WP:NPOV; several entries are potentially non-compliant with WP:RS; no justification for separate list given the requirement to include relevant sources in each article; publication details largely omitted so usefulness is limited JamesJJames (talk) 10:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Further comment. Any WP:N writer should have an eponymous article that can be found via the category and the article itself should include a list of works.  Having lists like this is superfluous given the category system.  --JamesJJames (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a useful list, which contains most - if not all - of the most significant works of cricket literature. Admittedly there are a few entries that don't belong, but that is almost inevitable. Finding the works in the list by going to all the individual author entries, as suggested above, would be less convenient (and some notable cricket writers don't yet have their own entry). JH (talk page) 10:56, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. As per JH. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morven (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as per JH Tintin 11:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per JamesJJames - if it's a worthwhile piece of writing it should be listed under its author or referenced in an article. Pete Fenelon (talk) 17:30, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; meets content policies, list is useful and could not be duplicated by a category. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It appears to be a useful bibliography on the hisotry of cricket. That is not my subject, but it is still worthwhile.  It is a list of books, which are themselves reliable sources.  Since several of the authors are red links, the existence of this as a list (rather than a category is justified.  Possibly move to Bibliography of Cricket History.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Nomination withdrawn. It seems consensus is to keep the article so I will accept that and withdraw the nomination.  The article does need to be improved and I've made a couple of changes already for starters.  One link was incorrect, one work title was incorrect and one of the redlinks was to a deleted article which had failed WP:N and WP:RS.  Perhaps some of the less notable redlinks should be flagged for an inline citation to be provided which proves their notability?  --JamesJJames (talk) 20:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That would be a good idea - if you can, go ahead and make a stub for those authors. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (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.