Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 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 keep. Missvain (talk) 00:20, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 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)

Five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket is no longer an achievement. It has become common since ICC's expansion of teams with T20I status and will become unmanageable soon.

It is sourced completely from a statistics website, cricinfo, lacking reliable coverage. Störm (talk) 18:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list is a WP:FL, so maybe de-listing it would be the first course of action. Everything has been maintained and updated as and when a 5WH happens, and it isn't that common. 48 tims in 1,112 matches is about 3 or 4 times per 100 matches. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:44, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we do not have corresponding lists for ODIs or Tests for a reason. Per nom, the widening of T20I status has increased the number of qualifying achievements massively – there were just 27 in the 8+ years prior to 2019, followed by 20 in just 15 months following the change at the start of 2019. It is clear to see where this is going once cricket resumes a full international schedule. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, that is my point. Thanks for explaining the recent surge of centuries. Störm (talk) 20:09, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A notable and rare occurrence in T20I matches, let's face it, if this list didn't pass the inclusion guidelines, it would never have got to FL. StickyWicket (talk) 10:10, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As said above by Lugnuts and Associate Affiliate. If it didn't pass the guidlines it wouldn't have become a FL. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:29, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment and a question to others. This list was elevated to FL status in 2015. The scope of the list has increased massively since then, with the expansion of nations/matches granted T20I status in January 2019. As such, a T20I century is demonstrably not the rarity it once was (see figures presented above). Is it not the time for replacing this list with a "highest scores" list? If not, then surely that time must be near. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:45, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a rule that lists should be on "rare" things? The page is less than 100K right now, thus clearly manageable. So, we should perhaps wait for the list to actually grow, instead of going by statistical probabilities. IMO, t20is themselves are likely to be few for some years to come, and taking 5/10 in 24 balls at most remains no mean feat (RSes are likely to take notice) as long as most matches continue to take place between more or less evenly matched teams. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 16:21, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course not, but in this instance the more common the achievement, the less notable it becomes. As for size, it has increased 50% since the eligibility widened. As I say, it's very easy to see where this list is headed. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 16:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but possibly we need to work on the inclusion criteria, which has been made too wide by the ICC giving international status to all T20 matches between countries. Doubt many people care about a Uganda vs Qatar match, whereas they would care about Australia vs South Africa. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, a five-wicket haul in a T20 match is much harder (and so rarer) than in an ODI or Test match, as they bowl 4 overs in a T20 compared to 10 in an ODI and unlimited in a Test match. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to pass WP:LISTN, and as per Lugnuts, going from a featured list to deletion seems a bit drastic. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, but this one needs to be watched. Many five-wicket hauls are dealt with in lists dealing with grounds or countries. They might be the long term solution to any problem of bloating.

However, the actual list itself is a disaster with way too much information. The table is too wide to display on my reasonably large monitor - I pity anyone coming to this on a phone. The economy rate and batsmen dismissed can certainly be removed - there is some consensus on this from previous discussions since the list made FL. These removed makes tables like this so much more usable - and shrinks the article considerably. Personally I'd also rather see the men's and women's lists combined into one list, or the title of this one changed to include the word "men's". Blue Square Thing (talk) 22:49, 26 December 2020 (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.