Wiki How:Articles for deletion/England cricket team Test results (1946–1959)

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. The majority of editors argue that WP:NOTSTATS does not apply to these articles. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

England cricket team Test results (1946–1959)

[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)

Per WP:NOTSTATS/WP:NOTMIRROR. A summarised list of every single match over a 15 year period. Essentially the same as using ESPNCricinfo statsguru. We don't do lists like this for other playing nations. These lists have been nominated before: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England cricket team Test results (1946–59) Ajf773 (talk) 02:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are part of a series:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep note that WP:NOTMIRROR does not apply, as that refers to "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files", which is clearly not the case here. WP:NOTSTATS applies to "Excessive listings of unexplained statistics." The nominated lists, most of which have been judged by the community to be of Featured status, do not simply provide unexplained statistics, but they put the statistics into context by use of independent sources, as required and allowed under WP:LISTN. While the nominator is correct that the lists for the other playing nations have been deleted (wrongly in my opinion) note that such lists do exist in other sports; Wales national football team results 1876–1899 and Scotland national football team 1872–1914 results are both also Featured lists for example. Harrias ^talk 06:30, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes, they have been nominated before, and if you look at the version prior to nom in 2015, they were terrible articles. However, these seem to be a rare case of being nominated previously and editors then taking the time and effort to improve them up to Featured List status. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment so why are these articles any different to those that were part of this discussion? Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Test cricket matches results (1877–1914). Ajf773 (talk) 08:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those were bare lists that genuinely did nothing more than replicate lists from elsewhere. In contrast, these lists combine match and series results, and add a summary table to help put the results into context. The lead section of each article discusses and highlights the information given in the table, generally comparing it to other nations active at the time. (Note that England cricket team Test results (2005–2019) is an exception to these comments, as that article is still in the old format, which as it stands does not do anything more than replicate lists available elsewhere.) Harrias ^talk 09:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the timeframe of each article is completely arbitrary and while they may include significant periods, they have no apparent significance in their own right, so there is no real context. The prose of each may highlight a few milestones, occurrences or statistics during the time period in question, but the former are covered elsewhere and the stats have no significance because of the lack of context. For example, we have "England faced the Australia/West Indies most frequently during this period..." – so what? Why does/should that matter? The simple answer is, that it doesn't – it just meaningless trivia. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:46, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The only thing I can see different from the previous versions is the addition of results and the tour that the match was associated with. Hardly an improvement. The stats table at the bottom is a perfect example of trivia. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite the window dressing of some woolly prose, these are nothing more than indiscriminate lists of results created through duplication of an online database, and as such are an obvious violation of WP:NOT (STATS, MIRROR). Looking at the FL nominations, it appears that some of the key FL criteria were given very little thought. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, the contexts that have been attempted here are invented ones as the timeframes are arbitrary; they are not "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" so clearly fail LISTN. The true context is as a whole, which makes this an indiscriminate mirror and a failure of WP:NOT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:56, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Harrias sums it up perfectly, a list decided by the community to be of sufficient quality to become a featured list wouldn't become so if the rationale for this nomination was met. A ludicrous nomination. StickyWicket (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what defines a list to be good enough for a feature list these days? Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Lists that “put the statistics into context by use of independent sources, as required and allowed under WP:LISTN.” StickyWicket (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment i note that the nominator did not reach out to anybody related to this article and others becoming featured lists prior to nominating for deletion ie. fl nominator (did alert them to afd nomination), (eventual) supporters, and fl delegate, nor let their concerns be known on the articles' talkpage, or the cricket project talkpage. although not required (see "main contributors" (C. 3.), doesnt seem to reflect the collaborative nature of the project? Coolabahapple (talk) 10:04, 2 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Harrias. The fact that some of these are featured list status surely means that they pass WP:NOTSTATS. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if we're going to have articles on every cricket tour, such as Indian cricket team in England in 1959, it's reasonable to have a list of them. power~enwiki (π, ν) 05:10, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are not lists of tours, they are lists of individual matches and results. Ajf773 (talk) 09:39, 6 October 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.