Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Test matches (1918–1939)


 * 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. Black Kite 15:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Test matches (1918–1939)

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

Delete. Undeveloped and superfluous list that adds nothing to the project as nearly all the series it lists have their own articles. BlackJack | talk page 14:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC) 
 * Keep. It seems to me that this is a useful summary list, even if most of the series included have their own articles (and I am sure that there are quite a few that do not). Admittedly it could do with some work; i particular it needs an introduction. JH (talk page) 15:22, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I have notified wikiproject cricket of this. Spartaz Humbug! 20:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Provisional Keep. Section summaries/lists leading to the more detailed articles could be a really useful way of navigating round the cricket pages but the page looks like its been lifted straight from Wisden. I'd be interested in the views from the wikiproject on whether these lists are useful. Spartaz Humbug! 20:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - seems a useful overview. If readers find it helpful they will consult it; if not they won't. Also, no valid deletion reason has been given. TerriersFan (talk) 20:55, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Largely duplicates the information in [Category:International_cricket_competitions_from_1918-19_to_1945] without providing useful links to the articles on the individual series. The History of Test cricket series (which seems to have stalled around 1900) might usefully have an article covering this period, but this article isn't it. Johnlp (talk) 21:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - sorry, it clearly provides information not in the category since the category is just a list of pages. This article avoids having to consult each page individually in order to obtain an overview. I agree with you, though, that linking to the individual test articles would be useful but that is a straightforward editorial task not a reason for deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 21:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reply comment. Yes, but this would also be pretty much "just a list of pages" if it had the links that it probably ought to have. Of course, someone could add more information, and turn it into a real contribution, perhaps in the History of Test cricket series. But that would be a substantially different article from this one, and my suspicion is that it'd be better to scrap this one and start again. Johnlp (talk) 15:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * weak keep - only if some work is done to actually link to the series elsewhere, and it should probably be renamed Test cricket series (1918-1939) otherwise it could be Test rugby, or anything else. Also, why 1918-1939 as cut off dates. Obviously it is between the wars, but does that have any particular significance for cricket? I know why those dates have been chosen, but do others? I know that an article in poor shape is no reason to delete it (there is no deadline after all), but in its present state it is pretty poor and needs some linking, proper references and a general cleanup. I'm not convinced about the format of the article either with new sections for every series. A summary table may suffice (Series, between x and y, home wins, away wins) etc which could be grouped by year or season.–MDCollins (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Topic is notable. Cricket historians often divide cricket history using the World Wars, so it's a notable subdivision too. Fact that it is underdeveloped is irrelevant - 99% of our articles are underdeveloped. It can be developed into something far more detailed than a Cat and knowing JHall, I guess it probably will be eventually. --Dweller (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks for the compliment. I have to confess that, though I have voted "Keep", improving this article is pretty low down on my priority list (except that, if no-one else does so, I might add an introductory paragraph). JH (talk page) 17:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If not you, someone else. I seem to remember there's no deadline. --Dweller (talk) 08:48, 3 September 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.