Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bowlers with 5 or more ten-wicket hauls in Test cricket

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 Delete. Michig (talk) 07:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of bowlers with 5 or more ten-wicket hauls in Test cricket[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An other sock creation with questionable notability. 5 ten-wicket hauls seems like an very arbitrary number and what says this is notable? This is just an other list (among many others) from ESPN Cricinfo without evidence of widespread notability to pass WP:GNG Qed237 (talk) 15:41, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep Number of 10 wicket hauls at the highest level is definitely an indicator of ability over a long time . Both muttiah and Shane would get coverage for being prolific 10 wicket haul takers. Eg [1] or [2] LibStar (talk) 15:59, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Completely arbitrary threshold, Wikipedia is not a statistics database. There are at least two other websites (CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo) devoted to these statistics, there is no need to duplicate that information. IgnorantArmies (talk) 03:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, st170e^talk 01:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a ten-wicket haul is a very significant thing to happen in a match and to get five in a career is a very significant thing. When someone gets one 10-wicket haul it is well reported and getting five is well reported. - Yellow Dingo (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Delete, after reading the opinions below, I now agree that this is a case of an arbitrary threshold which fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Yellow Dingo (talk) 07:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to me the threshold is arbitrary which is the key. I can't find any generally accepted number of 10wm which is considered inherently notable so it's a clear delete for me. Note that this is not suggesting that a 10wm isn't notable at all - it is. But it's the number of times that seems to be arbitrary unless someone can show me where it is "well reported" in itself. Blue Square Thing (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – ten-wicket match hauls, while often included on a player's statistical line, are a secondary statistic that tend not to get significant coverage in their own right – certainly not to the extent that overall wickets or five-wicket innings hauls gets. This, coupled with Blue Square Thing's comment that the threshold is arbitrary, makes this a clear delete for me. Aspirex (talk) 07:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I support the view that a ten-wicket haul is a significant feat - for a bowler it's akin to a batsman scoring a century. Like several other commenters my objection here is an arbitrary threshold. There is no special significance in a bowler taking five 10wm's as opposed to any other number. Bcp67 (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 10-wicket hauls are a feat, but the figure is arbitrary. Do any actual reliable sources make reference to the ampunt of 10wm that cricketers have? Think answer is no. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of longest rivers of the United States (by main stem) too, it has a completely arbitrary 500m cutoff. Siuenti (talk) 21:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The user (sock of a previously blocked account) is known for creating such lists based on arbitrary threshold. —Vensatry _(talk) 03:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.