Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current fast bowlers in international 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 per WP:NOTSTATS; usefulness is not an accepted "keep" rationale for articles. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of current fast bowlers in international cricket[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Not needed for an encyclopedia, WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 17:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I created this article in order to split this information from Fast bowling, and agree it is not encyclopedic, as it require huge amount of WP:OR to maintain. Spike 'em (talk) 17:28, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, I created the article following this discussion, in case this of use. Spike 'em (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Qualitist (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't keep lists of current sportspeople. Plus the whole list is a violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 02:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - impossible to maintain etc... Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:08, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTSTATS. StickyWicket (talk) 10:57, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per above. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:39, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Its an excellent source of information that is with verifiable links and has been kept up to date quite regularly. 38.122.7.210 (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Please keep, its the only reliable composite source of this information. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The process of researching and maintaining this list seems to be original research which is not allowed, and Wikipedia is not a web host. If you want to maintain the list then you'll need to find another site to host it. Spike 'em (talk) 20:43, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be original research if it were not backed by data. Also there are lists of current sports persons that is maintained every week such as ATP Rankings and WTA Rankings for tennis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.136 (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those lists require no research, they are reproducing lists available elsewhere on the web. Maintaining this list requires editors to search out and compile information. There is no guarantee that it is either up to date or correct, as it is relying on the competency / diligence of people who are not shown to be experts at performing this sort of task. If you want to maintain the list, create your own website to do so. Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This page also has lists of Strike Rate, Average and Total Wickets that are taken as it is from CricInfo. They are like ATP Rankings and WTA Rankings. So that stays?

You are the person who put the effort to create this document. why did you feel the need?

Because the list that was in Fast bowling was even worse (using subjective inclusion criteria) and I said at the time of creation that I'd happily ditch it. Spike 'em (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well this article does have use as it shows up first when you search for fast bowlers. I dont really see any advantage of deleting it. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 02:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Without this list according to cricinfo's outdated data, a few months back Oshane Thomas would be a Medium Fast bowler (so would be Usman Shinwari), Jasprit Bumrah would be a medium bowler, Mohammed Amir, Rubel Hossain, Kemar Roach, Lasith Malinga and Jhye Richardson would be the fast bowlers whereas the truth is while the first two may currently be the fastest in the world and latter ones hardly ever bowl even 135kph average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.181.193.136 (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So what? we are not here to correct cricinfo. Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we are not here to correct cricinfo, but for information. which is what this page provides in a verifiable way. 69.181.193.136 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you google for current fastest bowlers, this is the list that pops up, and so brings in a lot of traffic, instead of an outdated list that showed up a few months back containing names of players who haven't been playing for years such as Fidel Edwards, Mohammad Sami, etc, or players who do not bowl fast at all such as James Anderson, Lasith Malinga etc. Even sites such as sporteology have updated their lists and data from this one since this is more accurate and reliable.

Again, so what? WP:NOTEVERYTHING states : "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful." Spike 'em (talk) 21:34, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well not solely because it is true or useful but because it clarifies doubt about what is.. which is what an encyclopedia does.

Comment Are 38.122.7.210 and 69.181.193.136 the same person? Both addressees geo-locate to the same area (which is not a traditional cricketing hotpsot), and both spend most of their time editing this article. As per WP:DISCUSSAFD: Use of multiple accounts to reinforce your opinions is absolutely forbidden. Multiple recommendations by users shown to be using "sock puppets" (multiple accounts belonging to the same person) will be discounted and the user manipulating consensus with multiple accounts will likely be blocked indefinitely Spike 'em (talk) 11:44, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This mainly feels like original research which isn't allowed here on Wikipedia without a valued reference there. Also as its WP:NOTSTATS that will also make it invalid. Not Homura (talk) 10:15, 2 February 2019 (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.