Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Players in Indian Premier League

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. Eluchil404 (talk) 10:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Players in Indian Premier League[edit]

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

Unnecessary list. It is unsourced and isn't updated to maintain relevance and accuracy. Fails WP:V and probably other guidelines I'm ignorant of. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:14, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't fail V - it isn't unverifiable. It's just unsourced in that list, which isn't quite the same thing. The four red-linked players shouldn't be there, per list guidelines for living people. A few spot checks indicate that the information is in the players' bios. As for maintenance (which isn't a valid reason for deletion - if it were, we'd delete half the encyclopaedia), it does appear to be up to date as of 2011, with several entries for the 2012 season. So that doesn't appear to be correct. Overall, I'd say that I see no valid reason to delete, so keep. Guettarda (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, it doesn't fail WP:V, but I think it does fail WP:NOTESAL. While everyone in that list is notable, I don't feel the list itself is particularly notable. Having a list of players who have played in the English Football Premier League for example would be similarly non-notable as a list, despite the notability of the individuals. Harrias ^talk 18:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's not a lot different in my opinion from many other lists of cricketers (and others) that we keep and maintain, such as the lists of Test and ODI cricketers or lists of cricketers for different teams. It would be more useful if it was sortable and up-to-date, of course. So even though I can think of no instance in which I would ever be likely to refer to it myself... I still think it's a keep. Johnlp (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Our lists of international cricketers are inherently more notable than domestic lists. We don't have lists of all the players that have taken part in a domestic competition; As an example, we don't have List of players in the Friends Provident t20 or List of players in the Sheffield Shield. Instead we maintain lists on individual teams, which is a much more efficient way to list players. It duplicates a topic which could be easily split and be more inclusive: at the moment there is no clear guideline for inclusion, with most of the names being just overseas players or Indian players of note. List of Rajasthan Royals cricketers ect would better list the players involved in the IPL by team. If every single name of a player who has taken part in the IPL were included, I think this list would quickly become too big and even more pointless.
- Be that as it may, the basis for deletion is that such a thing should not exist - per policy or guidelines. And I don't see that case being made here. Guettarda (talk) 21:25, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- "Too big" can't be right: Chennai Super Kings, who have been in the IPL for all five seasons, have played so far just 37 different players. Multiply that by the number of teams, and you're nowhere near the number of players who've played, for instance, Test cricket for England (or first-class cricket for Tasmania). The "guideline for inclusion" surely is whether they've played a match in the IPL: that seems pretty clear. Sorry, but the argument for deletion doesn't stack up; it needs work, certainly, but is in my view valid. Johnlp (talk) 23:21, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, on the same lines as Johnlp. Except that I find it useful, unlike most of the other cricket lists that we have that are easily obtainable from Cricinfo. Tintin 05:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the same lines. e^xtra999 (talk) 14:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is useful. Needs to be improved. --Deepak Shimoga (talk) 01:06, 7 March 2012 (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.