Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 English cricket season

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 SNOW keep. Mixture of SNOW, WP:SK2 WP:SK3 bundling widely different stuff. It is plainly ridiculous to bundle the 2013 ICC Champions Trophy!!!, at the very least (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 11:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2011 English cricket season

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

Delete all in the bundle for non-compliance with the terms of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). Please remember that WP:NOT isn't about notability. All of these articles are notable and that is not the issue here. The problem is that each article is a mass of statistics with no context. To my mind, they are in direct breach of this regulation as collections of indiscriminate statistical information (WP:NOTSTATS). The rest of the bundle is as follows: — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.

Readers can find these statistics on specialist sites and reproduction of them on Wikipedia serves no useful purpose. The articles are about seasonal competitions and readers need descriptive narrative. I regret that I often find articles about 21st century cricket lacking narrative but these are especially bad and I believe they should be considered for deletion. Ziggy (talk) 15:53, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE.[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ^{Babymissfortune} 16:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. These are pretty much all on notable topics, for which sources will certainly exist, and not indiscriminate at all. They need improvement, but I don't see a case for deletion. --Michig (talk) 19:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all WP:NOTSTATS is about "Statistics that lack context or explanation". All of these have some context, even if they contain more stats than prose. Also, they are all the top-level tournaments in (mainly) England for domestic cricket, passing WP:NSEASONS. Included in the bundle is 2013 ICC Champions Trophy, an international cricket tournament! Saying that article should be deleted for being non-notable is nosense. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:15, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator. I haven't cited notability as a reason to delete. WP:NOT isn't about notability. The articles breach WP:NOTSTATS because they do not explain the excessive statistics in use and they provide little or no context. Notability is not at issue and its introduction into the discussion is irrelevant. I have altered the nomination wording to explain that notability is NOT(!) the issue here. Ziggy (talk) 21:41, 21 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep (keep all of them) as these are all perfectly valid articles, and the deletion reason is not convincing or a correct interpretation of policy. Despite the nominators comments, these are not "just lists of numbers". Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of these articles go by the WP:NSEASONS as it is part of the English Cricket calendar. I just find it obscured that you thought about deleting these articles. Matt294069 is coming 22:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Regardless of whether or not the articles are notable, some of them have been around for years and still have not been improved beyond tables of information. Also nobody has said they are "just lists of numbers", but as they currently are (and as some of them have been for several years) they are not in compliance with WP:NOT. Ideally the articles would be improved so that they don't breach WP:NOTSTATS, especially since the information is all basic info that can be obtained from other sites. TripleRoryFan (talk) 23:09, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts, and WP:SOFIXIT regarding most of these, and a whole lot of WP:BEFORE not done on these too. Nate • (chatter) 00:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, as with other editors above, you have assumed that the issue is notability. You are citing policies and guidelines here without taking account of their applicability. WP:BEFORE requires: "(reference to) the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)". The first three are fine in all these articles but the fourth one isn't. All these articles are in breach of WP:NOT. Ziggy (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We aren't deleting the whole lot of these. It would be one thing if these stats, venues and tourneys are complete lies. They aren't. They took place. The statistics are well sourced to them. And we're not deleting an article dealing with one edition of cricket's Olympic tourney equivalent. Improvement, not the nuclear option of removing all content and starting over, is definitely the preferred way to go forward here. Nate • (chatter) 13:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator. I have tried three times now to explain that the issue with these articles is excessive statistics. The only editor who has so far understood that is TripleRoryFan. I agree completely that the articles all meet the terms of WP:Notability, which is WP:N in site shorthand. The problem is that they breach WP:NOT which is site shorthand for WP:What Wikipedia is not and my specific concern within WP:NOT is the WP:NOTSTATS regulation within WP:IINFO. May I please ask the administrator to ignore all editors who are trying to use notability as the reason for keeping the articles because it is a false (by mistake) argument? Yes, the articles are all notable but, no, they do not comply with WP:IINFO. Take 2015 NatWest t20 Blast as an example. It has a file size of 567kb of which a mere 1,426 characters (254 words) are readable prose in the form of a brief introduction and a brief description of the tournament structure. The rest is statistical with no narrative about events or even a report of the final. I actually attended that final as a follower of my native Lancashire and I am a lifelong fan of cricket so, yes, I personally fully understand what all those statistics are telling me but what are they telling readers who know little or nothing about cricket? Ziggy (talk) 08:34, 22 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that article can be fixed by normal editing, as AfD is not for cleanup. Just because there is little prose, does not equate to deletion. All of the competitions are covered by multiple news outlets, showing their notability. Issues on stats overload can be addressed on each article's talkpage, if needed. Every single fixture in the 2015 NatWest t20 Blast has a full match report which could be used to expand the article, if anyone wanted to put the effort into doing that. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Futher comment to an admin - Looking at the edit history of the nom, they've been here all of three weeks, and within their second day of being here created this AfD. For someone who is "new" they do know a lot about the ins-and-outs of WP from the get-go. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So this AFD process is Chinese Fireworks Science, is it? Your supporter Ilyina also has a very good understanding of Chinese Fireworks after making only a couple of hundred edits but apparently she is okay. You should read the WP:AFD page and you will see that the instructions are so well-written (unlike these cricket articles) that any reasonably intelligent person, including unregistered users, can easily follow them and make use of the facility, tedious though it may be. Oh, and have you ever heard of IP users? Take Southport F.C., for example, on which the vast majority of edits have been done by people using IP addresses. These people probably learned a lot about "ins-and-outs" before they ever thought of trying a "get-go". Someone with 700,000 edits is presumably part of the institution and is allowed to bandy bad faith accusations around. Ziggy (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC) — Sigurd Hring (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of BlackJack (talk • contribs). – Struck above comment from blocked sock per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Sam Sailor 16:01, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quite the opposite. I can spot a WP:SOCK from a mile off, and all the alarm bells about your account are ringing very loud. Would you care to disclose any previous accounts, including IP addresses, you've edited as, seeing as you are a "newbie"? Try and do that before you retire this account. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:10, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note Please focus on the topic at hand. If you believe someone is misusing multiple accounts, WP:SPI is that way. This discussion is not about the nominator as a person but about their arguments and it should stay that way. Regards So Why 13:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SoWhy. Just to note that Sigurd Hring/Ziggy was indef blocked in the last hour for being a sock. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My keep recommendation above was specifically taking into account WP:NOT, the nominator is incorrect in their deletion rationale. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 11:25, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Now here's just a collection of numbers. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:17, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per nominator's comment, "the articles all meet the terms of WP:Notability". Deli nk (talk) 14:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. They'd (mostly) be better articles with more narrative, but I don't think they breach WP:NOTSTATS. Johnlp (talk) 18:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are all notable enough. I'd suggest maybe a speedy keep, since this nomination was started by a sock. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close bad faith nomination- It is very clear what's going on here. The nominator's sockmaster, User:BlackJack, recently devoted a lot of time and attention to defending articles on obscure one-game cricket players. Many of those articles have ended up deleted because a lot of people argue that raw statistical entries are not suitable sources to base prose articles on. Now he's started a bunch of frivolous cricket AfDs with similar reasoning with the aim of making that viewpoint look silly. It's a false flag operation and, though I had a low opinion of BlackJack previously, I'm surprised he's descended this far. Speedy close. Nothing good can come of this. Reyk _YO! 08:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - we do need to look at how we can fix articles on individual seasons by refining more than we have done the articles in question. In a perfect world, as per football clubs by season, I foresee there being not only articles for every first-class and list A cricketing tournament but for individual teams' seasons (at least in England/Wales). Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 1895 etc.. The question, in each case, is how much content will be purely statistical and how much prose we are able to add. There is, one has to assume, such a thing as too much information - such as some people believe articles like Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 include. Are the 2005 season articles an example of this? Who knows.

A supplementary point - regarding "defending single-appearance cricketers", as I have stated over and over again there are much more confusing things on the project. Why don't people take as much offense to articles like Headley Keith (I chose one at random) whose article comprises a single line of text prose and has received no improvement in 12 years - or indeed Test cricketer articles (I'm sure there are still some which exist) which contain zero references or external links? This strikes me as gross hypocrisy. Bobo . 10:21, 23 January 2018 (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.