Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pakistan Test wicket-keepers

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. RL0919 (talk) 13:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pakistan Test wicket-keepers

[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)

There is no precedent in other sports for having such lists, such as, no article on association football goalkeeper. It is a mirror of statsguru, and also falls under WP:NOTSTATS. If people agree with me, then we should enlist other similar articles too. Störm (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:11, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are 30 other similar lists on the same topic. Are these to be bundled here, or is this a test case? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:08, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lugnuts, Test case. If it results in delete then we may consider other for deletion. Störm (talk) 19:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've dropped a note at WT:CRIC to get more input. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 05:25, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom/WP:NOTSTATS. This is just a list of stats with no prose giving any context. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We either help users find articles they want by categories or by list articles. The Cats have all been deleted as per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_January_10#Category:Wicket-keepers. And making this a test article is a bad idea, because you'll avoid notifying interested editors who haven't edited this particular one, like Spike 'em, who has plenty of edits to List of England Test wicket-keepers. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 00:02, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller, Lugnuts has dropped a note at WT:CRIC. I think it is enough to attract interested people. Störm (talk) 09:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Also, see related AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World XI wicket-keepers which resulted in delete. Störm (talk) 09:45, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think if you are to use a test case to set a precedence, you should use one of the better examples of such lists rather than one of the worst. As mentioned by Dweller, I've edited the England list in the past, which has a reasonable amount of prose in the lead. It would be straightforward to add similar to any other list of keepers. Spike 'em (talk) 15:39, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also see some merit in what Dweller says about aiding navigation. Football may not have lists of players by position, but they certainly have a set of categories to do so. Looking back through the CfD above, the cricket versions of these were deleted many years ago mainly to stop people arguing about whether a given player is an all-rounder or not. Spike 'em (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion Re the comment in the nom, most other sports use the categories to navigate positions, but the cricket cats were deleted. It is clearly a notable intersection (spend a minute googling), but I think this is all the wrong way round. Can I suggest we close this, all support an overturn of the category deletions and then return here? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:50, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dweller I concur with the suggestion. The navigation by category is a better way to go. Most of the stats in these lists are already covered by main lists such as, in this example, List of Pakistan Test cricketers. I see no use of such lists, and continously updating them is also a hassle. OK, I am withdrawing my nomination. Störm (talk) 11:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw my nomination and close this AfD. Störm (talk) 11:18, 23 October 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.