WikiProject Cricket
|
Main page | Discussion | Tasks | Deletions | The Nets | Assessment | Resources | Contests | Awards | Members |
WikiProject Cricket |
---|
Lead article (talk) Portal (talk) • Root category (talk) |
Cricket templates |
Cricket studies |
This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Cricket. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.
- Adding a new AfD discussion
- Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
- Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
- You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Cricket|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
- There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
- Removing a closed AfD discussion
- Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
- Other types of discussions
- You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Cricket. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.
- Further information
- For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.
This list is also part of the larger list of deletion debates related to Sports.
watch |
Sources for articles
Do you see a cricket article here which you think has been wrongly nominated and is notable? Please check out The Library for potential sources to be added to expand an article.
Cricket
Articles for deletion
- List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Bob Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:GNG due to lack of significant coverage in multiple, independent sources, of the specific topic of five-wicket hauls by this specific cricketer. Not viable as a split-list because split-lists have to have stand-alone notability per WP:AVOIDSPLIT. This appears to be a WP:SYNTH/WP:OR from primary sources. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Cricket. FOARP (talk) 13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment - seems to me that this is somewhat similar to the AfD we had a while back on WG Grace, see WP:Articles for deletion/W. G. Grace's cricket career (1864 to 1870). The difference here appears to be substantive in that we are talking about a sporting achievement rather than trying to write a full autobiography. I've not yet come to a conclusion where I fall on this one but thought other contributors might appreciate seeing the other discussion. JMWt (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment: I feel like a proposal to delete a Featured List needs a stronger argument than this. In any case, it meets the long-agreed upon threshold of 15 fifers. StAnselm (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- A stronger argument than it not meeting our most basic PAGs? FOARP (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Lists and England. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. I have added a couple of references to the article, establishing the significance of his fifers as captain. StAnselm (talk) 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- I see what you added here. It’s a passing mention in an article about Joe Root/Pat Cummins. Not significant coverage of Bob Willis. FOARP (talk) 06:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete and merge necessary content to the main article. Lorstaking (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. No evidence that the subject meets NLIST requirements for IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 20:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Beeblebrox Beebletalks 00:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep meets WP:NLIST which says:
Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; and other guidelines on appropriate stand-alone lists. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been.
- The Times has covered his five-wicket haul performances in detail in his obituary ([1]) and same is the case with other obituaries where they covered his five-wicket hauls [2], [3] - these sources partially cover his five-wicket hauls and meet the requirement of WP:NLIST. He was one of the greatest cricketers of England (there is a trophy named after him, i.e. Bob Willis Trophy) so obviously there are a lot of books and magazines that have covered his wicket-hauls. I found some on Google Books like [4]. The current referencing of the list is not ideal but someone with access to paid sources can find more sources to expand the list. Thanks. Gheus (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- The Times, Scotsman, and Graun articles do not mention five-wicket hauls at all. They mention total wickets taken, the average numbers of wickets taken, 27 wickets in five tests, and so-forth but fifers aren't mentioned at all. That isn't partial coverage - that's no coverage. No-one is questioning whether Bob Willis himself is notable, just whether a listing of all of his 5-wicket hauls is notable. The GBooks link isn't visible to me. FOARP (talk) 15:44, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR, just a repeat of content that can be found on ESPNCricinfo. Ajf773 (talk) 02:50, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Those sources discuss various notable performances where sometimes his getting some number of wickets in a match is mentioned alongside other standard match recap stats. They are not covering the concept of "repeated n-wicket hauls", let alone validating the threshold of 5 wickets in particular. If we accepted such arbitrary passing stats one of these lists could be made for each type of stat for almost every famous cricketer and certainly most MLB/NFL/NBA players. JoelleJay (talk) 05:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- List of no-hitters thrown by the New York Yankees is a red link for some reason... FOARP (talk) 16:17, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. I saw the invitation at WT:CRIC, and have read both Bob Willis and the list. I can see no good reason to keep the list, but plenty of reasons to delete it. As JoelleJay has pointed out, the obituary sources do not talk about the number of times Bob Willis took five wickets in an innings—as regards his bowling performances, they essentially focus on his outstanding match at Headingley in 1981—and I believe that, as a "grouping or set in general", this fails WP:NLIST. I completely agree with Ajf773 about the statistics, and I do not think any cricket article should be based on statistics derived from a database source. There are four paragraphs of text introducing the list, but I am not seeing anything that isn't in the main article and, again, the information is nearly all derived from statistics. I think FOARP is right about WP:AVOIDSPLIT because the split-list doesn't have notability—it is nothing more than a statistical offshoot that cannot stand alone, under the terms of WP:GNG. ReturnDuane (talk) 15:10, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge to Bob Willis, main of the reasons by those who have !voted delete is that this is not sufficiently notable to be a standalone list. In that case the obvious solution (imo) should be to merge the content into the main article, thus retaining content that is deemed featured worthy rather than destroying it entirely. JP (Talk) 16:15, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- 1) Nothing on Wiki is ever “destroyed”. Even deleted material can undeleted (ask an admin).
- 2) The total number of fifers and details descriptions of notable wicket-hauls are already discussed in depth on Bob Willis’s article, so what is there to merge here that isn’t already there?
- 3) How is this statistical minutiae WP:DUE in a general biography? FOARP (talk) 11:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Many cricketing biographies in book form and on Wikipedia (at FA/GA level) include 'Statistical summary' sections at the end, I see no issue with the table and some of the prose being included in such as section. Fifers are not statistical minutiae in cricket hence this list being created in the first place. JP (Talk) 13:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- They seem to be, otherwise this discussion wouldn’t be headed for delete. But why isn’t it enough to provide the prose description of important wicket hauls, together with the total count of fifers and other statistical information already supplied the info box? FOARP (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- As stated in my initial response, most of those !voting delete have stated in their reasoning that this should not be a separate list. My reaction to that is merge rather than delete. The sports lends itself to statistics and as evidenced by the statistical summary sections found in many Wikipedia articles a lot of cricket fans are interested in them, therefore a table which lists five-wicket hauls gives those viewers an alternative way to see his best performances without having reading through the lengthy prose. JP (Talk) 16:05, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- They seem to be, otherwise this discussion wouldn’t be headed for delete. But why isn’t it enough to provide the prose description of important wicket hauls, together with the total count of fifers and other statistical information already supplied the info box? FOARP (talk) 15:22, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Many cricketing biographies in book form and on Wikipedia (at FA/GA level) include 'Statistical summary' sections at the end, I see no issue with the table and some of the prose being included in such as section. Fifers are not statistical minutiae in cricket hence this list being created in the first place. JP (Talk) 13:13, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanderwaalforces (talk) 10:10, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge: per WP:AVOIDSPLIT, Article and list topics must be notable, or "worthy of notice". I'm not convinced that this article meets this criterion. Although the stats are partially covered in the Bob Willis infobox, I think more information can be merged into the parent article. Like JP, I see no issue with the table and some of the prose being included there.--DesiMoore (talk) 15:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- What would the table and prose be sourced to to qualify as BALASP? We have no coverage of "5-wicket hauls" as a topic, so how would we justify including data with that arbitrary cutoff? JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does "We have no coverage of 5-wicket hauls as a topic" mean? We have a page on it and it is frequently mentioned on the Bob Willis page. It is not an arbitrary cutoff, it is one of the main statistics as shown by the infobox. JP (Talk) 23:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do not have coverage of it as a topic in the context of Willis. Since no secondary independent sources are discussing the relevance of specifically Willis' five-wicket hauls, it would be undue to cover it with a giant table and prose in the Willis article. Moreover, on that page every single mention but one of "taking five wickets" in a given match is being drawn from pure primary stats rather than secondary prose, and in the one Wisden ref where getting a fifer is mentioned in prose, it's because he got exactly five wickets and they're just reporting that fact. It is OR to emphasize aspects of a subject beyond how they are treated in sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- The lack of coverage as a topic is the argument against this standalone list. If the five wicket hauls are covered throughout the prose then I fail to see how a summary table of those is going to bring undue balance. JP (Talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- @JoelleJay's argument is that, since secondary sources don't cover this anyway, it's not clear why we need to cover it in detail in our article on Bob Willis. We already give the total number of fifers scored by Bob Willis in their infobox so how is it WP:DUE to include a table listing every single one? Since the notable ones are covered in prose anyway, why do we need a tabular listing? Additionally the Bob Willis article is already verging on WP:TOOLONG territory at 69 kB prose size.
- FOARP (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Secondary sources do cover the individual five-wicket haul performances just not as a collective. To quote my earlier response: "The sports lends itself to statistics and as evidenced by the statistical summary sections found in many Wikipedia articles a lot of cricket fans are interested in them, therefore a table which lists five-wicket hauls gives those viewers an alternative way to see his best performances without having reading through the lengthy prose." BTW fifers are not scored. JP (Talk) 10:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is undue to highlight a topic that has not received attention at all. None of the sources listed here or in the articles discuss his getting five-wicket hauls in a way that would imply "five" is a notable threshold for him as a category; they merely mention his picking N wickets as part of his overall performance in individual matches, with N being anywhere from 3 to 5+. The vast majority of sources for the table are also primary stats, which directly conflicts with our policy
Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.
for precisely the reason that policy exists: we cannot draw conclusions that are not already found in IRS sources. With the table, we are drawing the conclusion that Willis' five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy category of achievement when they are not treated as such in sources.For information to be verifiable, it also means that Wikipedia does not publish original research: its content is determined by information previously published in a good source, rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors, or even the editor's interpretation beyond what the source actually says.
JoelleJay (talk) 20:27, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- It is undue to highlight a topic that has not received attention at all. None of the sources listed here or in the articles discuss his getting five-wicket hauls in a way that would imply "five" is a notable threshold for him as a category; they merely mention his picking N wickets as part of his overall performance in individual matches, with N being anywhere from 3 to 5+. The vast majority of sources for the table are also primary stats, which directly conflicts with our policy
- Secondary sources do cover the individual five-wicket haul performances just not as a collective. To quote my earlier response: "The sports lends itself to statistics and as evidenced by the statistical summary sections found in many Wikipedia articles a lot of cricket fans are interested in them, therefore a table which lists five-wicket hauls gives those viewers an alternative way to see his best performances without having reading through the lengthy prose." BTW fifers are not scored. JP (Talk) 10:40, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- The lack of coverage as a topic is the argument against this standalone list. If the five wicket hauls are covered throughout the prose then I fail to see how a summary table of those is going to bring undue balance. JP (Talk) 08:32, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- We do not have coverage of it as a topic in the context of Willis. Since no secondary independent sources are discussing the relevance of specifically Willis' five-wicket hauls, it would be undue to cover it with a giant table and prose in the Willis article. Moreover, on that page every single mention but one of "taking five wickets" in a given match is being drawn from pure primary stats rather than secondary prose, and in the one Wisden ref where getting a fifer is mentioned in prose, it's because he got exactly five wickets and they're just reporting that fact. It is OR to emphasize aspects of a subject beyond how they are treated in sources. JoelleJay (talk) 03:57, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- What does "We have no coverage of 5-wicket hauls as a topic" mean? We have a page on it and it is frequently mentioned on the Bob Willis page. It is not an arbitrary cutoff, it is one of the main statistics as shown by the infobox. JP (Talk) 23:57, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- What would the table and prose be sourced to to qualify as BALASP? We have no coverage of "5-wicket hauls" as a topic, so how would we justify including data with that arbitrary cutoff? JoelleJay (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
- Test bowling records on Cricinfo (https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/format/test-matches-1/category/bowling-records-4): Most five-wickets-in-an-innings in a career, Most consecutive five-wickets-in-an-innings, Youngest player to take five-wickets-in-an-innings, Oldest player to take five-wickets-in-an-innings, Oldest player to take a maiden five-wickets-in-an-innings. No 3, 4, 6, 7 or 8. In cricket, five wicket hauls are considered an important achievement, it is not an arbitary OR statistic that you are attempting to portray it as. JP (Talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- It's an arbitrary statistic as it pertains to Willis, because we do not have coverage of it for Willis. Databases also aren't evidence of secondary coverage anyway. JoelleJay (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- Test bowling records on Cricinfo (https://www.espncricinfo.com/records/format/test-matches-1/category/bowling-records-4): Most five-wickets-in-an-innings in a career, Most consecutive five-wickets-in-an-innings, Youngest player to take five-wickets-in-an-innings, Oldest player to take five-wickets-in-an-innings, Oldest player to take a maiden five-wickets-in-an-innings. No 3, 4, 6, 7 or 8. In cricket, five wicket hauls are considered an important achievement, it is not an arbitary OR statistic that you are attempting to portray it as. JP (Talk) 21:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
- List of Indian Premier League awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics - similar to every other cricket leagues. Also, this page is just WP:NOTSTATS. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Awards, Cricket, and India. Vestrian24Bio 04:28, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Lists of people. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 06:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. It's unusual that I simply say, per nom, but in this case that applies. A redirect might be possible and might just stop this article getting re-created Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete just because the IPL takes every stat is can think of an then sells someone sponsorship for an "award" for it, that doesn't mean we need this awards article. All sufficiently covered in the stats article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:50, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. The closest analog is Women's Big Bash League, the longest-standing women's T20 franchise league. Women's Big Bash League#Season summaries has a table listing the recipients of the "Most runs", "Most wickets", "Player of the Tournament", and "Young Gun" awards for each season, essentially the same as IPL's "Orange Cap", "Purple Cap", "Most Valuable Player", and "Emerging Player" awards covered in this article. IPL's Orange and Purple Caps have also received significant independent coverage in major cricket news websites, such as ESPNcricinfo. The merge target proposed by @Vestrian24Bio, List of Indian Premier League records and statistics has a different scope, focusing on all-time records, analogous to Women's Big Bash League#Statistics and records. Finally, merging to Indian Premier League#Awards is not an option here as the main IPL article is 173,624 bytes (almost twice the size of the corresponding WBBL article). I would support the removal of sections covering sponsored awards of negligible importance — I would be surprised if the
Visit Saudi beyond the boundary longest six
award has received much independent coverage — but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Preimage (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2025 (UTC)- @Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Vestrian24Bio, you stated
similar to every other cricket [league]
— which is manifestly not the case. ESPNcricinfo (together with The Cricket Monthly, its longform magazine) is widely considered to be one of the top non-paywalled websites covering cricket. Even Wisden's weighted in here — admittedly, the first hit I found was an article on how cricket's long-standing focus onaggregate runs
is statistically illiterate and should be replaced with Moneyball-style advanced metrics — but the point is that these awards are considered to be conventionally important. I'd support a merge into Indian Premier League if we could combine the 4/5 most important awards into a single table as the WBBL article manages to do. Merging into the records and statistics article isn't really an option though, its scope is just too different. Preimage (talk) 13:18, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- @Vestrian24Bio, you stated
- @Preimage: Not sure how this is relevant to WBBL, but even WBBL doesn't have separate articles for this... And also ESPNcricinfo isn't a news website but a WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 12:58, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep Awards like Orange Cap, Purple Cap and MVP are all noteworthy and covered widely not only in India but outside India too: [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]. In India, any changes to the holders of these caps and leaderboards receive extensive coverage throughout the season: [12] [13] [14] [15]. In fact, the caps are physically worn on the field by their current holders over the course of the tournament, so these are actual awards with significance and not just stats. As such, merging this article with the proposed target would not be appropriate. A like-for-like comparison would be the FIFA World Cup awards article which covers awards such as Golden Ball, Golden Boot and Golden Glove. The delete voters sound a lot like WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:IDONTKNOWIT. Yuvaank (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Except it isn't a WP:CFORK of the stats article and are actual notable awards as can be seen with the sources I presented. Your usage of double quotes for the word awards just goes to illustrate WP:IDONTKNOWIT unfortunately. Yuvaank (talk) 20:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Also, FIFA World Cup awards won't even be a proper comparison as it's an international competition as opposed to IPL which is a domestic competition. Vestrian24Bio 03:23, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay and not a guideline/policy set in stone. The notability of the list itself is established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. It is seems individual articles on Indian Premier League Orange Cap and Indian Premier League Purple Cap, which were created by @Magentic Manifestations back in 2015, were merged into this list by @Vin09. I can see the reasoning behind the merge, although these two awards are likely to be notable in their own right. Yuvaank (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERIT, individual coverage of Orange Cap and Purple Cap wouldn't make the list notable. Vestrian24Bio 01:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Whether it is a domestic competition or international is besides the point. The basic premise of your nomination is that these awards are not notable and are merely stats. I presented sources from 6 different countries that prove that these are indeed awards–notable ones at that–which have received sustained coverage globally over the years. FWIW, here are some awards from domestic competitions: La Liga Awards, Premier League Golden Boot, Premier League Golden Glove, Bundesliga Awards. You also invoked WP:CONSISTENT in your nomination statement, which is a policy on article titles. Yuvaank (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:AGF, my vote is based on this being a WP:CFORK of the stats article. I know what all these "awards" are. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:35, 14 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete - People arguing for this topic being notable are arguing on the basis of individual items listed in it being notable, but notability is not inherited. Neither can an sub-topic inherit the notability of an over-arching topic, nor can an over-arching topic inherit the notability of sub-topics within it. Fails WP:LISTN. FOARP (talk) 15:30, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for pointing that out. IPL's yearly awards are presented as part of the post-match ceremony at the end of each IPL final. They are covered as a group each year in regular news coverage of the final (e.g. [16]), as well as in post-season articles like [17] (comparing ESPNcricinfo's own set of awards to the official IPL 2023 Orange Cap, Purple Cap, Player of the Final, and Player of the Tournament awards). Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- As a side note, I'd appreciate it if you could also comment on the merge suggestions: the original nominator's comment
All this stuff can be and should be included within List of Indian Premier League records and statistics
sounds like a proposed merge (to be posted at WP:PM) rather than an AfD nomination to me. If you do consider a merge appropriate, I'd argue that Indian Premier League#Awards would be the best target (as this list was a WP:SUBARTICLE split off for reasons of length), but I'm open to other suggestions: you clearly have more policy expertise in this space than I do. Preimage (talk) 02:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)- I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states
"Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, ... [it] is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.
The topic of the article we are looking at is 'who won the IPL awards each season?' - The first source is titled
IPL 2024 final awards and prize money: Complete list of winners including Orange Cap, Purple Cap and more
. It's a beat report to inform readers 'who won stuff last night?', which starts by covering the events of the final, before switching to the award winners. It has a paragraph covering (what it presumably considers to be) the three most important awards, the Orange Cap, Purple Cap, and Emerging Player of the Season, then provides a full list of winners. While the article doesn't go into a huge amount of detail on each award besides listing its monetary value, the list of award winners shares primary-topic status with the winners of the final. - The second source is an ESPNCricinfo post-season analytics article discussing who they consider to be the most impactful players from the 2023 season. It closely references the major IPL award-winners, starting with its opening phrase:
Faf du Plessis, and not Shubman Gill, is the most valuable player of the IPL 2023
. It reminds readers that Shubman Gill won the MVP and Orange Cap awards two paragraphs later:The Player-of-the-Tournament and the Orange Cap winner Gill was part of a team that had more batters who took up the slack
, before noting theEmerging Player of the Season
, Yashasvi Jaiswal, was 3rd in their ranking. After more batting discussion, it switches to the bowlers:Mohammed Shami - the Purple Cap winner - came second to Siraj in terms of Bowling Impact per match
. While the IPL awards are only a secondary topic of this article, it discusses the four most important/prestigious season-length player award-winners in detail, alongside comparisons to the players their analytics suggest were statistically the best. Preimage (talk) 02:32, 17 January 2025 (UTC)- ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
You're assuming that both sites are purely databases. They aren't. They're actually some of the highest quality sources for cricket, regardless of the fact that their websites also include databases.
- Preimage (talk) 03:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- The ESPNcricinfo article we've been discussing here is clearly an in-depth news/analytics article (WP:INDEPTH), rather than WP:ROUTINE event coverage. To quote @Black Kite from the latest (2023) WP:RSN discussion in which Cricinfo/ESPNcricinfo is mentioned, WP:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 417#Reliability of cricket databases:
- ESPNcricinfo sources fall under WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 03:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
- Re: sourcing, I'm working off WP:SIGCOV, which states
- I'd be OK with a redirect/merge - it's verifiable content. Not sure about those sources: the first seems to be about the ceremony, the second about Cricinfo's stats. FOARP (talk) 09:13, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
- WP:NOTINHERIT is an essay though, not a policy or guideline. The list's notability can be established by articles such as Scroll.in, The Indian Express, India Today, News18 and Wisden. Yuvaank (talk) 10:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting as the discussion on what should happen with this article continues up to today. There doesn't seem to be much debate about sourcing but about whether or not this article is a FORK and whether the content are just stats or notable subjects in their own right. And in the past day, participants have brought up the possibility of a Merge which I think is due more consideration. But if participants could just refer to policies, not essays, and give fuller arguments than just a Keep or Delete and consider other options, it will make closing this discussion in a few days easier.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 04:34, 18 January 2025 (UTC)Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 09:25, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
- Delete. WP:NOTSTATS must apply here. ReturnDuane (talk) 15:36, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
- Keep. Sources provided here indicate that these awards are considered as a group and meet WP:LISTN. Not sure why WP:NOTSTATS is being cited here, since indicating who wins an award is not a "stat". Yes some of the awards are for things like "most runs" but other awards are for subjective things like Player of the Final, Best Emerging, Best Catch. This is no different from most other major sports leagues where there will be awards for most goals, best save percentage, etc. and isn't a NOTSTATS violation. Even if the list as a whole lacks notability, then the obvious solution would be to create individual articles for each of these awards, since as many even delete !voters have noted, these awards do get more coverage as individual awards and likely meet WP:GNG, than as a group. Merging with List of Indian Premier League records and statistics also makes no sense, since at least the non-objective awards would be neither records or statistics and would require a rename of that page. -- Patar knight - chat/contributions 02:14, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Comment. It seems to me that Information architecture is one of the sources of disagreement between editors: where should this topic / these topics be covered in Wikipedia to best serve our users? The AfD relisters have encouraged us to consider whether other options would allow us to reach consensus, and @Patar knight's note that this article could be split into separate articles (for the top 3–4 awards) seems like a reasonable approach to me. Reviewing the options listed in WP:Deletion process#Common outcomes, we could implement this via a merge to Indian Premier League#Awards followed by an immediate split to other articles, or alternatively, via dabification. I would be happy to change my !vote to support either of these two implementations. Preimage (talk) 14:18, 28 January 2025 (UTC)
- Merge to List of Indian Premier League records and statistics, though this should be a talk page discussion. Sandstein 09:33, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
- Keep, or at worst merge. The half-dozen player and team awards of the IPL are unquestionably notable - plenty of sources have been provided above. I don't see how NOTINHERITED and NOTSTATS apply; there is encyclopedic context established by the sources in the article, and in any case those guidelines need to be applied with common sense, else we would want to delete any spinoffs of major tournaments. There is arguably enough content that a spinoff from the statistics article (which is primarily overall statistics, rather than awards by season) is reasonable, though I'm not strictly opposed to a merge. Vanamonde93 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist but this is beginning to look like a No consensus closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)