Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Northamptonshire v Somerset 29 June 2005

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. IceKarma&#x0950; 03:00, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Northamptonshire v Somerset 29 June 2005
Stub about a single cricket game. Notablility is not established. (Unless we want articles about every individual game played by every pro-sport team accross the planet, that is.) --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 03:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete User appears to have more than one article like this (Durham v Kent 4 September 2005) - Jaysus Chris 05:58, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a useful way of writing summary articles for each team and competition while the season is underway (see Northamptonshire County Cricket Club in 2005, Somerset County Cricket Club in 2005 and Twenty20 in England in 2005) as the content is transcluded onto those pages. Also, see Votes_for_deletion/Essex_v_Glamorgan_15_May_2005 and Votes_for_deletion/Nottinghamshire_v_Yorkshire_26_June_2005, which both ended in keeps. 07:22, 18 September 2005 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam Vimes (talk • contribs)
 * Keep as per every previous time this has been discussed. --Ngb?!? 07:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, see previous discussions. Stephen Turner 08:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep Not again. CalJW 09:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep It's true, it's verifiable, it's going in an article. Why on earth delete it?  [[Sam Korn ]] 11:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Why would you delete a perfectly useful article? -- Ian &equiv; talk 11:45, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Kappa 12:29, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. WP:ISNOT the daily sports report. I have no idea what the justification is for articles about utterly routine results of sports contests. Shouldn't this be in Wikinews or something? Thousands of sporting contests are played every day all over the world, but for some reason English cricket matches are considered notable. I think maybe this should be one of the Centralized Discussions and not just individual AfDs. There is absolutely nothing encyclopedic about a report of a minor sporting match. We're not talking about the FA World Cup or even international test matches here.  -- MCB 18:56, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * This is becoming seriously annoying. We have had many discussions over this.  I can recall five off the top of my head.  The end result was "no consensus".  I simply cannot believe people are still nominating them.  Perhaps they are just ignorant of what has gone before.  If so, allow me to summarise.  These articles are not going to last forever.  Shortly, at the end of the English cricket season, they will be merged into relevant articles.  In the meantime, they are being transcluded onto various other pages so we have something on these pages.  This accounts for the odd formatting.  Thus they will not stand forever as articles in their own right.  On the other hand, it's true, it's verifiable.  Why delete?   [[Sam Korn ]] 19:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Perhaps the fact that you are getting lots of AfDs on this matter is a sign you are doing something wrong? The idea of keeping temporary articles on something that are later merged and deleted is definitely non-standard practice. One thing to do is to keep them on temporary pages outside of the main wiki space. I struck out my delete vote, but please think about these things next time. Sdedeo 20:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's a sign that what we're (sorry, Sam Vimes and jguk with our support) doing is controversial and unusual. Non-standard, certainly.  But what's so wrong with that?   [[Sam Korn ]] 20:27, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Besides, where would we "ask for permission" to do such a thing? It's a wiki. There's no one holy god to ask permission for every single gritty thing we want to do. If we did it on the Village pump, people might argue that "oh, not everyone reads that stuff" and list it on AfD anyway. Sam Vimes 20:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really being critical, and definitely IAR, I agree. You can probably avoid all these annoying AfDs from people who aren't up to speed if in the future you put them in a temp space, e.g., User:Sam Korn/Northamptonshire v Somerset 29 June 2005. It is very unusual for articles to be created in the main space with the expectation that they will later be deleted -- hence all the delete votes from people who think it's a permanent article. All the best, Sdedeo 20:51, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Trouble was, we actually did that originally, and it gave problems with mirror pages such as answers.com, so they were moved into the main namespace. Definitely something to think about for 2006, though. Sam Vimes 20:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Would you argue that the 2005 English cricket season is non-notable? If so, sorry for wasting your time. If not, then these articles are valuable in creating the pages on the 2005 English cricket season, since it eases the strain on editors and creates good summary pages from different perspectives, as I have outlined above. Some might come here to see how the Twenty20 Cup went, others would perhaps have an interest in how Somerset's season were. That's how these articles are structured - and just FYI, WikiProject Cricket were planning to merge them into the consistuent articles once the season was over. 19:46, 18 September 2005 (UTC) (preceding unsigned comment by 19:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC))
 * Delete - If the editors can't take the strain of their editing, they shouldn't be doing it. --193.166.11.251 07:53, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per MCB. Routine sports event, nothing notable. Sdedeo 19:12, 18 September 2005 (UTC) (see above)
 * Delete per WP:ISNOT. WMMartin 22:08, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Userfy, or move to Cricketpedia or just plain delete this. WP:NOT a webhost or news service. Pilatus 23:39, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete plz!!! What is with all this "oh let's include a stub about EVERYTHING THAT'S EVER HAPPENED EVER" nonsense??? &hearts;purplefeltangel (talk) &hearts; (Contributions) 23:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, yet again, like all the rest of this series. See them for the arguments to keep.  Guettarda 00:00, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Important Comment: I have created a centralized discussion for this issue, in an attempt to reach consensus and not have the issue raised in a large number of individual AfDs. Please go to Centralized discussion/Sports results and discuss on the discussion page. -- MCB 03:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Shameless sportscruft. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. / Peter Isotalo 12:46, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep We have discussed this before and agreed keep each time. Remember that this article is part of a series about the 2005 English cricket season. Effectively WP:Cricket is creating an almanack that will, in time, exceed Wisden in depth (though probably not renown). It's an excellent source that I use myself for checking on the season. Series of articles such as this are good for Wikipedia - and isn't that what we're all here for - improving WP? jguk 18:11, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep once again, see previous arguments. Hiding talk 18:39, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Ludicrous sportscruft. And if you need rough drafts, don't you people habe hard drives? --Calton | Talk 21:01, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong delete I fail to think of any possible argument to keep it. Did you even heard about Wikinews?  Grue   12:56, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * We've rehearsed the Wikinews thing endlessly over and over in all the previous VfDs on this same set of articles. If I can borrow your quaint phrasing, did you even heard about respecting previous consensus? --Ngb?!? 14:15, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * So why these articles weren't transwikied to Wikinews? They'd like them there very much. Problem solved. Cricket fans can do their original reporting and Wikipedia gets free of this POV ridden stuff. Also there was never a consensus on keeping these articles. Ask any Wikipedian not affiliated with cricket what he thinks about it? He'll probably say: original reporting, not suited for Wikipedia. And he'll be right.  Grue   14:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * No, they wouldn't like them very much, because of licensing problems. Unless the writer of the articles (well, ok, me) agreed to license the articles in the public domain. As for "original reporting"? The policy is: "The phrase "original research" in this context refers to [...] data, statements, concepts and ideas that have not been published in a reputable publication'". The data it is based on is published in a reputable publication, and even linked to in the article. Of course it has to be rephrased and put it in a new form, otherwise someone would slap a copyvio on the page! As for "ask any Wikipedian not affiliated with cricket what he thinks about it" - that's how TWO successive VfDs have ended in keeps, with many votes from people not even on WP:Cricket? Sam Vimes 15:10, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete. Imagine wanting to read this in twenty years.  Come on. Dottore So 15:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't that be great? Kappa 16:01, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think this may reveal one of the reasons we're having difficulty reaching consensus either way on this issue. I suspect people who are voting "obvious delete" are thinking in terms of this one article standing on its own. Whereas people who are voting "keep" are thinking in terms of the season reviews that these articles will make up. See the Centralized discussion for more on this point. Stephen Turner 16:26, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I can! I have Wisden going back fifteen years and many followers of cricket have it going back much further than that -- some even to 1864! --Ngb?!? 16:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Same here. Dottore So's comments tells a lot about the difference between followers of cricket and other games like baseball, and why they can't understand our POV. I often spend hours browsing through random scorecards of matches of 50-100 years ago. Tintin 10:04, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Cricinfo has all the articles going back to 1864. Some are quite interesting. Also, I have a feeling that some matches in the 2005 season will be talked about for many, many years to come (see the 2005 Ashes, jguk 18:35, 20 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - See discussion on previous VfDs. --Peripatetic 13:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep as Peripatetic above. Can't be bothered to give the reason yet again Tintin 10:00, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's verifiable and wiki isn't paper. It doesn't come under any point at What Wikipedia is not. ··gracefool |&#9786; 13:57, 25 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.