Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket

Lead article	talk
Portal	talk
Root category	talk
Main project page	talk
→ Featured material
→ Notability guidelines (List of notable competitions & matches)
→ Style guide
→ Quiz

Announcements and open tasks
→ Articles needing attention	talk
→ To-do list	talk
→ Nominations for deletion	talk
→ New articles	talk
Article assessment	talk
Reviews	talk
Media	talk
Images	talk

Project organisation
Members	talk
Awards	talk
Project banner	talk
Project category	talk

Templates
Infoboxes
→ Cricketer biography infobox	talk
→ Cricket team infobox	talk

Studies
General topics
→ Administration	talk
→ Awards and rankings	talk
→ Competitions	talk
→ Controversies	talk
→ Culture	talk
→ Equipment	talk
→ Forms of cricket	talk
→ Grounds	talk
→ Laws of cricket	talk
→ Records and statistics	talk
→ Scoring	talk
→ Skills	talk
→ Terminology	talk
→ Women's cricket	talk
→ Cricket by year	talk
Biographies
→ Don Bradman	talk
→ W. G. Grace	talk
Cricket teams
→ England	talk
→ Hambledon Club	talk
→ West Indies	talk
→ Yorkshire CCC	talk
Cricket by country
→ Australia	talk
→ Bangladesh	talk
→ England	talk
→ India	talk
→ New Zealand	talk
→ Pakistan	talk
→ Nepal	talk
→ South Africa	talk
→ Sri Lanka	talk
→ United States	talk
→ West Indies	talk
History of cricket
→ Australia	talk
→ Bangladesh	talk
→ England	talk
→ India	talk
→ New Zealand	talk
→ Pakistan	talk
→ South Africa	talk
→ Sri Lanka	talk
→ United States	talk
→ West Indies	talk

edit · changes

Shortcut

WP:DSC

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Cricket. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Cricket|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Cricket.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Cricket/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Sources for articles[edit]

Do you see a cricket article here which you think has been wrongly nominated and is notable? Please check out The Library for potential sources to be added to expand an article.

Cricket[edit]

Articles for deletion[edit]

Villowo[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability, could not find independent sources with significant attention for the sport. Fram (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and India. Fram (talk) 07:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bermuda Smash Invitational[edit]

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

Non-notable cricket tournament which fails WP:GNG, WP:NCRIC, and WP:EVENT. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AA (talk) 13:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, United Kingdom, and Caribbean. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870)[edit]

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

Too much cruft, must be deleted as per convention to remove the australian fanfict articles Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, History, Cricket, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @JoelleJay @Trainsandotherthings @Serial Number 51429 as I have seen them in support for such article removals Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:APPNOTE says "The audience must not be selected on the basis of their opinions—for example, if notices are sent to editors who previously supported deleting an article, then identical notices should be sent to those who supported keeping it." James500 (talk) 04:05, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is clear WP:CANVASSing of people they expect to vote with them. This canvassing should be considered by the closer of this AFD. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What are you referring to by "australian fanfict articles"? -1ctinus📝🗨 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, discussion to merge completed (please see said discussion)
- Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1956 and Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1953 already merged, deleted earlier. However this set of wg grace articles have hardly one ga, so many stubs and other full of stuff not required. They arent notable enough for wikipedia.
Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the two pages was merged they should not have been deleted. Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. If you copy some text from another Wikipedia page it should be clear in the edit summary and/or the talk page where the text came from. Wikipedia is not public domain. Christian75 (talk) 11:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. I havent done that mate, just nominated these pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noting that I was pinged to this discussion, and that I'm not a fan of these articles, I believe we should delete all as fundamental violations of WP:NOT as cricket statistics turned into articles due to one person's consumption by what I like to call the cricket insanity. They are also clearly non-notable as the sources cover Grace's entire career, not simply his performance in any given event. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably merge the shorter articles, with less referencing, to larger articles covering longer periods of time. These articles do not consist entirely of statistics, though it may be appropriate to cut some material from them. A chronological split of our W G Grace article will satisfy GNG. See, for example, the coverage of the 1880s in Bax's chapter "The Glorious Eighties" [1]; the chapter on Grace in Portraits of the Eighties: [2]; Midwinter's chapters 7 and 8 on 1879 to 1891: [3]; and Darwin's chapter 6 on 1880 to 1891: [4]. So you could certainly write an article on W. G. Grace in the 1880s or the period 1879 to 1891. The question is not whether the main biography article should be split, but how. W G Grace is the subject of a large number of entire books, since he is probably considered the greatest cricketer of all time, so his biography is not realistically going to fit in a single article. James500 (talk) 04:03, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well other cricketers with longer careers do also have same articles. One new thing that has been inspired from football articles is a seperate career page - Career of Lionel Messi. Since Virat Kohli's page was long, I made this article Career of Virat Kohli. Maybe something similar? Pharaoh496 (talk) 04:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge all Is this a mockery of some sort? Sure you can split some details from the main article, but why the hell would you make more than a dozen subarticles, each with just a few paragraphs? WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:NOTSTATS come to mind here, we don't need prose sections for every season with the stats. Reywas92^Talk 20:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bilawal Stadium[edit]

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

Lacks sig/in-depth coverage so, fails WP:GNG. I don't see it passing WP:ORG either. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. —Saqib (talk I contribs) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Cricket. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 14:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Could not find any sources providing any actual coverage let alone significant coverage on the subject. Fails WP:GNG. This is little more than a dictionary entry. All of the sources currently on the article are passing mention with the actual subject not being Bilawal Stadium. The fact that something exists does not mean it is notable. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Benazirabad as this venue is a prominent landmark in the city and is mentioned in the target page. Fails GNG and ORG and lacks standalone notability. Frank Anchor 13:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Parvinder Singh[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject does not appear to meet WP:NCRIC. He has played in domestic-level cricket.. but does not appear to meet the notability requirement maintained by the cricket wikiproject. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, and Cricket. Jip Orlando (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uttar Pradesh-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:52, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A substantial domestic career, with 8 centuries and a high score of 203 not out; sources in Indian print media are bound to exist, his career isn't one which will go without coverage. AA (talk) 22:55, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage here. GoldRomean (talk) 01:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - beside his Cricinfo profile which gives a career overview, there looks to be a fair bit of coverage regarding individual innings. Hindustan Times 26 November 2009, Telegraph India 2 November 2013, The Statesman 7 January 2009, Indian Express 20 November 2012. He has played at the highest level of domestic cricket and this seems sufficient coverage to justify an article. --JP (Talk) 08:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Primary match reports are routine news and per NSPORT and NOTNEWS do not count towards notability, and that is all I'm finding for the subject (including among the links above). Sportspeople are required to have IRS SIGCOV cited in their article, regardless of their achievements and regardless of where or when they played. JoelleJay (talk) 02:36, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

SIGCOV not regarding individual matches also exists if you look hard enough. --JP (Talk) 07:30, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That does go somewhat beyond a routine transactional report, so I'll reconsider my !vote. I'm not overly familiar with what's routine in cricket outside of match reports, though, so I'm going to ping @Wjemather for his input. JoelleJay (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Think there's enough here in what JP has found for a keep. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zimbabwean cricket team in Ireland in 2024[edit]

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

Fails GNG, sources in article are passing mentions in routine sports news, nothing meeting WP:SIRS.

Source eval:

Comments	Source
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	1. "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi". ESPNcricinfo. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	2. ^ "ICC confirm Ireland's fixture list for next four years". Belfast Telegraph. 18 August 2022. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	3. ^ "Ireland to host South Africa in Abu Dhabi in September". CricTracker. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	4. ^ "T20 World Cup in focus as Ireland outline busy summer schedule". International Cricket Council. Retrieved 13 May 2024.
Passing mention in routine sports news, fails WP:SIRS, nothing SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth	5. ^ "Fixtures released for 2024". Cricket Ireland. Retrieved 13 May 2024.

Draft has been disputed. It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV. // Timothy :: talk 04:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, Zimbabwe, and Ireland. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or, at best, draftify). No indication how this single/planned/"friendly" cricket match meets WP:NSPORTSEVENT and WP:GNG. If, after the event occurs, it is clear that WP:LASTING and WP:SIGCOV are met, then the article could be recreated. As it stands, this seems to be a classic example of why we have WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTCRYSTAL guidelines. Guliolopez (talk) 10:49, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am frankly baffled by the two "keep" recommendations below. Both from seasoned editors. But both of a type expressly discussed in WP:ATA. ("All test series have articles - and so this one should too" is a classic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Nothing is inherently or automatically notable. Not least sports fixtures that haven't yet occurred. And "There may not be coverage now - but there definitely will be" is a WP:ONLYBECAUSEITHAPPENED argument. Where the community agrees that "Notability is based on objective evidence of whether sufficient reliable sources have taken notice already". Not whether they could in the future....) Baffled..... Guliolopez (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm baffled by the noms statement: "It is very unlikely this match will generate WP:SIGCOV"; this perhaps illustrates they are not familiar with Test cricket, or the importance of the match, as it will certainly generate significant coverage. AA (talk) 09:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the nominator could have framed their own argument better (and perhaps said "it is very possible [SIGCOV won't be generated]"; Rather than the more definitive/predictive "it is very likely/unlikely [SIGCOV won't be generated]"). But the fact remains that AfD discussions should be based on the sources and evidences of notability that exist at the time of the discussion. Not those that might exist in the future. Or would have existed in the past had conditions been different. Personally I don't understand why, even if you fully believe that sources/evidences will arise in the future, you wouldn't see that as an argument to draftify/incubate. Until that actual SIGCOV actually exists... (Also, familiarity with test cricket [or expertise in any field] isn't a precondition to AfD discussions or a prerequisite to dispassionate evaluation of sources.) Guliolopez (talk) 10:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 10:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A series between two ICC full members who will play a Test match, the highest level of the international game. This match will receive coverage and WP:SIGCOV as it is the first Test match to be played in Northern Ireland (a historically notable moment) and only the second Test match played on the island of Ireland. AA (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every Test cricket series, even a one-Test series like this, has an article. Sammyrice (talk) 03:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify It's likely that coverage will exist at the time of the test, but for now draftify as a case of WP:TOOSOON. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:43, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 19:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clearly fails in WP:GNG, the event is not notable for a dedicated article. Svartner (talk) 05:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - Agree with AA that it is likely this will receive sufficient coverage to meet SIGCOV. But that is in the future. For now it doesn't, and draft space is specifically for incubating such articles. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Asim Munir (cricketer)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject lacks the WP:SIGCOV to meet the WP:GNG. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Sports, Cricket, and Pakistan. Let'srun (talk) 14:55, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Utterly pointless nomination, obviously missed the outcome of the first AfD. AA (talk) 16:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous nomination closed as no consensus 56 days ago. Possibly a little soon for a renomination, but there is no requirement that a person wait any amount of time after a NC close. Frank Anchor 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without a proper rationale, it's hard to consider your vote when the time comes to close this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think by referring to the prior AFD, AA is implying that their rationale there still applies: 64 matches at the highest domestic level, likely to be coverage in Pakistan too. Unlike western media archives (like Gale, BNA, Trove), Pakistan print media remains largely non-digitalized. Common sense should dictate that in cases where a large number of matches are played by a cricketer, they are likely to be notable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:26, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (copying my vote from the previous AFD, which still applies in full). The subject played 64 matches at the highest domestic level. Seems like a case where WP:COMMONSENSE needs to prevail, even if the references aren't quite to the level of GNG. Frank Anchor 16:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My comments remain the same as the previous AfD. It is highly likely that there is offline sourcing or non-English language sourcing that is difficult to access that would pass the subject for WP:GNG given the career he had. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep read the last AFD, fully concur with the keep voters there. Most likely passes WP:GNG Me Da Wikipedian (talk) 21:31, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:SIGCOV. No proof offered - per WP:NCRIC cricketers who have played at the highest domestic level, or in the lower levels of international cricket, may have sufficient coverage about them to justify an article, but it should not be assumed to exist without further proof.. Closing admin should ignore keep votes that couldn't find any significant coverage. 103.125.122.179 (talk) 00:09, 6 May 2024 (UTC) — 103.125.122.179 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- And likewise, unless a convincing explanation can be offered, this comment by an IP that has never edited before and is likely a WP:SOCK should be discounted; not to mention that NCRIC is a guideline and common sense is allowed to be used. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:34, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  IP links to Bangladesh, but definitely a WP:SOCK of someone. Checkuser? AA (talk) 10:40, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about the relisting while taking no sides: On the one hand, the sock suggestion is serious. On the other hand, all information as of this relisting comes only from a single source: CricketArchive. Even if the self-proclaimed "most comprehensive, searchable and trusted cricket database in the world" turns out to be valid and reliable, a notable individual should pop up in other sources as well. If other valid sources worth adding exist, great. If not, that may pose a problem. It would be nice for this not to end in another "no consensus" again so soon after the last one. I'm saying this here because it seems a bit long for a formal relisting comment. Doczilla _{Ohhhhhh, no!} 08:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per the last AFD (should not have been renominated so soon and I question how the nom came across it) and my rationale there. We need to use common sense. Unless someone can prove that some source from the era in Pakistan was searched in, then one cannot claim that this fails GNG – from my comment at the last AFD: it does seem the best option to be on the side of [common sense] for someone who seems ... to have played 64 top-tier matches in the fifth-most populous country in the world in its most popular sport. It is highly unlikely a person of such accomplishments would not have gained any coverage. I also question how four valid "keeps" plus one "delete from a sock" – which should be given no weight – equals "relist"... BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:31, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH, and as of today the IP has not been blocked. Consensus changes and one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy. [User:Let'srun|Let'srun]] (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the IP has not been blocked does not mean the almost certain sock should be given full weight. Common sense is absolutely a policy. Also, if you think my concerns about the nom are unfounded, would you tell me exactly how you came across this article, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AOBF. I also wasn't referring to that vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What were you referring to, then? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The first vote. Let'srun (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I guess I missed the "one of" part from "one of the bolded keep votes didn't reference any policy" – though I think the !vote implied that the rationale of keeping per common sense at the last AFD still applied, as I said above. Still think AA's !vote should be given weight. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: CricketArchive is a directory, not a secondary source. WP:MUSTBESOURCES is a flimsy argument at the best of times, but for a BLP, it's a non-argument. Without independent secondary sources providing SIGCOV for this BLP, we don't really have any options. Owen× ☎ 15:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- We are allowed to use common sense. It is invalid to argue the article fails notability when no one has searched in Pakistani sources whatsoever! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Yeah, that's exactly the MUSTBESOURCES I was talking about. Owen× ☎ 16:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  It simply makes no sense to delete articles when no one has searched for coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Well then, perhaps you should rewrite the WP:N and WP:BLP policies to a version that makes more sense to you, BeanieFan11. As they are written now, unless and until we find those sources, we can't have an article about anything, let alone a living person. Owen× ☎ 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  That's why IAR / common sense exists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Of course. Who needs all those pesky policies and gnarly guidelines when we have our WP:IAR trump card in our back pocket, right? Owen× ☎ 16:32, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Notability is a guideline; Editors should generally follow it, though exceptions may apply. This is one of the rare exceptions. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:35, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  IAR is not a trump card, but an understanding that Wikipedia’s policies are not perfect and there are cases in which the rules need not rigidly apply. OwenX, as an admin and consistent contributor to AFD/DRV discussions, should know this, even if he doesn’t agree with this particular application of IAR. Frank Anchor 00:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Full two relists seems appropriate given the relatively recent, prior no consensus outcome.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:13, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

India at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup[edit]

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

These articles are unnecessary WP:CFORKs from the main article 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup, and are not required. We have never created articles for teams at Cricket World Cups before, as they are wholly unnecessary, and just copying content available on other articles, such as 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, South Africa, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India, England, and Australia. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:29, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating articles for other countries at this event:

Keep - The following articles would be suitable as in the T20 World Cup, many matches will be played and in these articles, the readers can read the per match summary, team's tournament progression, tournament kit, scorecard, per team statistics and many more of the respective cricket team at a single article, which is not possible to mention at the 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup article. Any articles which haven't been created earlier doesn't mean it is unnecessary, there should be an article to record any team's particular tournament edition journey. Wowlastic10 (talk) 09:52, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tournament summaries should be in the main article anyway, which would cover the important matches and information, so a split out for match summaries for every match including the WP:ROUTINE coverage ones is not required. Tournament kit would be WP:TRIVIA, team statistics sounds like it would violate WP:NOTSTATS/WP:TRIVIA. None of this sounds like encyclopedic content, and just because people create these articles for e.g. IPL teams (which are questionable to do anyway), that doesn't mean they are valid WP:CFORKs for this tournament. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we keep it until first week of T20 World Cup? If you feel it useless then also, then you're free to delete it. What say? Wowlastic10 (talk) 05:41, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against this, as the onus is to prove that they are valid articles, not keeping in the hope they might be, against any evidence that they'll be anything other than a WP:CFORK with trivia and stats obsessions (like the IPL season articles). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: The concept is basically like India at the 2020 Summer Olympics, where pages like India at the Cricket World Cup are split for every edition. This is infact a very important addition to wikipedia and should be made for all teams having played every ICC tournament. Like the IPL teams, county teams; this is a very valuable addition as each page will contain stuff others cant.

I have been working on similar articles in my private space, but havent published them yet as I want to properly finish the thing before publishing.

@Wowlastic10 I would encourage you to make similar articles for all editions of the T20 World Cup. Do remove the words ICC Men’s and make it like India at the 2024 T20 World Cup; following the common name process. Furthermore, include national stats such as viewership, tournament stats of players of that country, pictures, quotes, squad information and match details with some description. Pharaoh496 (talk) 05:14, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do not rename these as suggested without WP:RM consensus, as the main article is at 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Also this comment doesn't address WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc
Proper matchwise description - not there on any other page
More information about reaction of said mactches and tournament in the country
Place to add pictures

Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Information on individual players as well. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More squad information such as matches played by each person, caps, etc - can be added to squad article, as has been done for some 50 over World Cup events.

Proper matchwise description - only needed for notable matches, not those with routine coverage. This is an encyclopedia, not a fandom site.

Reactions are mostly trivial and unencyclopedic, and any events/reactions that are actually important can go in the main article.

Lots of pictures violates WP:NOTGALLERY

So none of these are a good reason to create these WP:CFORKs. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup I agree with the nom. I don't see these as being necessary as content for these forks will just be re-hashed details for the main article, and then lists and stats that violate WP:NLIST and WP:NOTSTATS as they will just be random indiscriminate. If a particular team has a 'special' tournament, or gains significant coverage for another reason, then perhaps a fork can then be made, but one for each team is unnecessary, and the comparison to the Olympic articles doesn't wash given how much bigger an event (with loads more events and athletes) than a cricket tournament. We don't have forks for Football World Cup articles for example. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia, and these lists provide extra information about the playing nation than the main article. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per @Wowlastic10, this can be more than a list, and it warrants an article for each country. If the article does not have unique info it can be merged back. Pharaoh496 (talk) 19:02, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I'm saying, thanks for explaining it on my behalf. Wowlastic10 (talk) 10:37, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But providing more knowledge should be the aim of wikipedia- true, but putting information into various sub articles so people can add stats trivia isn't the best way of displaying it. We have an article on the events and squad articles, and those are the main 2 things about each team anyway. WP:CFORKs are still not needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. I can see these becoming unnecessary, poor quality, content forks consisting of minimal prose and just scorecards... nothing which can't be included in the main tournament article. AA (talk) 10:43, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let this discussion end, i'll again start including all the necessary details Wowlastic10 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont mean to bludgeon, but this has high chances of not ending up as a mere stub; per my reasons stated above. Each ipl team gets an annual page for its tournaments, as do the english county teams. This will only broaden and improve wikipedia's scope on the matter, considering the quality of cricket articles on here is way down compared to other sports. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE, just because other events like the IPL get articles like this every year (which I don't agree with anyway), that doesn't mean these should too. Nobody so far has demonstrated why this isn't an unnecessary WP:CFORK. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:48, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How many times a player has played in the tournament - how many matches a swuad member played

top 5 batting and bowling averages in the team etc

catches and dismissals

reaction / outrage / media coverage of tournament and team in said country

prizes and awards won by players for performance in tourney

explicit knockout stage performances

I respect your opinion wholeheartedly, but ipl and county teams have existed for long, with some of them featured and good articles. This is an opportunity for editors, who will add more valuable info and like i said, simply broaden wikipedia’s scope. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these things are encyclopedic enough, and no article with them will be a GA or FA if the process for GA or FA is applied properly. County teams don't have season articles and most IPL teams have tables and no prose, which is what these articles are and likely will always be. This is an encyclopedia and not a fandom site. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's easy for a visitor to get all the details about their desired team at one place. I'd say we keep the Teamwise articles and should nominate the Squads article for deletion. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 02:39, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the squads article isn't there, and all the fixtures are instead transcluded from the main page; it won't be a WP:CFORK. 𝓥𝓮𝓼𝓽𝓻𝓲𝓪𝓷24𝓑𝓲𝓸 (ᴛᴀʟᴋ) 03:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ILIKEIT. Joseph2302 (talk) 06:42, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not what I like, it's a suggestion to improve these articles. Vestrian24Bio (U, T, A, C, S) 07:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Squad articles are a cricket standard for these events, and can be expanded easily. These country articles are not standard or needed, swapping one squad article for loads of country articles is not a good solution. Just because it's the sort of thing WP:IPL would do, that doesn't mean other cricket tournament articles should do that. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:03, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, pretty much the point. Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:08, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a deletion discussion about squad articles, that would need a separate consensus (and nominating right now would just further muddy the waters). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (alternate solution): per nom individual articles for teams' performance at each world cup seems uneccesary. I suggest we have articles for teams' overall record in the tournament and we can have season wise breakdown or details there. Cric editor (talk) 3:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Let'srun (talk) 17:30, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup. Per nom. Needless forking. RangersRus (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting. My instinct, as a regular AFD closer is to Redirect these article to the competition which is typically what we do with bundled nominations like this. But I don't see a consensus for this action so that would be a supervote on my part. I'd rather not close this as No consensus so let's see if a few more days of consideration can form a rough consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:04, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 2024 ICC Men's T20 World Cup Dowrylauds (talk) 10:00, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge candidates[edit]

Proposed deletion candidates[edit]