Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/England tests
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 of the debate was Delete Naconkantari 04:15, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This has been under <<context>> for ages and no one can be bothered with it. It is a pointless list that will never be developed because of its massive scope. In any case, the title is wrong as Tests in this context begins upper case. A waste of space. --GeorgeWilliams 20:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Wikibout-Talk to me! 21:00, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete wrongly named, too short, impossible to maintain. Sam Vimes 21:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete couldn't agree more. --Jack 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- On its merits, Delete, but it would be stupid to delete this as unencyclopedic and yet keep the recently saved Eastern Suburbs 1912 Season. Do we really think domestic Rugby League results are more notable than Test Cricket results? -- GWO
- Nope, which is why we have articles like History of Test cricket (1884 to 1889). No need to duplicate information. Sam Vimes 13:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. That's why I said delete. But it doesn't explain why people voted for the survival of Eastern Suburbs 1912 Season. If we extend that to every team and every season, we'll have an astonishing amount of duplicate information. -- GWO
- Neutral (for now). I think this article has a lot more chance of being useful and maintainable than the existing "History of Test Cricket" articles. If we're going to have detailed descriptions of the matches, as in the "History" articles, a summary page like this will be more-or-less essential. But, it may be argued that the entire enterprise is doomed to failure. Tevildo 13:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. -- I@n ≡ talk 11:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This was the page I was looking for. How can this be difficult to maintain, once it's up to date, you only need to maintain it, after every result. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.67.55.147 (talk • contribs)
- 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.