Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Australia 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. (non-admin closure) ─ The Aafī ^{^(talk)} 12:04, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australia 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)

Per WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS these lists seem like they don't belong here. The bundle nearly all suffers from the same issue - a data list with no prose and/or context behind it, almost impossible to update without undertaking significant WP:OR. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:39, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and for the same reasons at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Kenya ODI wicket-keepers, which ended in delete too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first reference in the Australian article provides the exact precise source to keep the list updated without any OR. It's a list of a specialist position in the National team, a position that in Australia's case, only 33 men have filled over 143 years (68 for England over the same period). The-Pope (talk) 15:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete all~~ as it fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTMIRROR. WP:LISTN says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". I failed to find any independent reliable source which discusses them as a group. If anyone finds any RS for any list which discusses them as a group, I will happily change my mind. Störm (talk) 16:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, Lugnuts, ~~Delete all except Australian wicket-keepers list~~ or any other if sources are available. For Australian wicketkeepers, there is a complete book on the topic, The Keepers by Malcolm Knox, [1], [2], [3], [4] are some sources. I was short on time so only searched rigorously for the Australian list. It is quite possible that such coverage exists for other lists too. Störm (talk) 17:03, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[5], [6] for Pakistan list. Maybe we should convert current lists (for which sources are available) into general lists on wicketkeepers and merge Test, ODI, T20I into one list with prose. Störm (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A 3-part series on wicketkeepers. Störm (talk) 17:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so is being a wicket-keeper, per se, notable? I can see why being captain is, but wicket-keeper? Why not opening bowler? Or opening batsman? There are sources for some countries that might allow one or two of these articles to be turned into something better than a mirror of CricInfo (which, unfortunately, is rather what they are - arguably Pope's argument about the source providing the material to update the list makes that point rather well). I have no idea if there are lists of goalkeepers, catchers, goaltenders or so on - I can't find them, but there may be some. If there are and there's an acceptance that they're notable, then fair enough. If there aren't, then this is cricket over-reaching. Again. Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Square Thing, at least in Test cricket wicket-keepers had the specialist role and there is a ton of coverage if someone is willing to research about the topic ("Our panelists discuss how the role - and the art involved in it - have evolved", The rare breed of wicketkeeper-captains, [7], [8]). Goalkeepers, catchers, goaltenders, or so on can have their lists if they have coverage to satisfy WP:LISTN guideline. I am leaning keep (for majority of lists that have coverage). Maybe we should help develop these lists rather than deleting them. Störm (talk) 10:16, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - pinging @Spike 'em:, @Dweller: as they have participated in the previous nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pakistan Test wicket-keepers. Störm (talk) 10:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - maybe that's the thing I was thinking about that had been covered in the past. I can see pros and cons with both ways of doing this fwiw. Blue Square Thing (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:13, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTSTATS. Sources don't have info on this like "Ollie Pope became the 68th person to keep wicket for England" because it's not interesting to a general audience or most cricket fans. And combined with the fact that lots the players need explanations that they didn't keep wicket in some matches, it just serves as usless and confusing information. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I repeat my comment from the 2019 AfD: "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." I don't know what is deemed to be "confusing" about this list. These articles covering Test cricket, the highest level of the game. Comparison with "opening bowler" is a strawman, a better comparison would be captain. It's the topic of plenty of discussion in RS, and a quick Google turned up a book on the topic, too. Also, going on the nomination: "a data list with no prose and/or context behind it" is untrue of the England article (and in any case, a need for improving copy, which I agree with 100%, is not a reason for deletion) and "almost impossible to update without undertaking significant WP:OR" is untrue of all of them, as the tool Cricinfo provides allows us to know the wicketkeeper in every Test match ever played. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:50, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dweller: It's true that there's a list on CricInfo which this information is copied from. Isn't that rather the definition of NOTSTATS and/or NOTMIRROR though? I'd rather have a list of names, possibly with dates. That would fulfil the job you're looking at either a list or a category doing. Once we add the stats I think that's where we get into a whole range of potential issues. I've always wondered whether the whole act of have to set up a statsguru query in the first place doesn't rather turn this into almost the definition of OR though.

You know the football project better than I do. How are goalkeepers dealt with there? Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:38, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to have a discussion about what stats to include/exclude at a suitable venue. But this is a deletion discussion. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I think with a specialist position such as wicketkeeper, these lists have a usefulness to readers that isn't covered elsewhere. If I wanted to know, for instance, the various wicketkeepers who were tried out by England after the retirement of Godfrey Evans (and before they settled firmly on Jim Parks, and eventually Alan Knott), where else might I go? If the Deryck Murray article was better, then it might include the names of the various West Indies wicketkeepers who occasionally supplanted him, but it isn't and it doesn't; and the West Indies list does the job. One of the jobs of a good encyclopedia is to anticipate readers' questions: it strikes me these list articles do just that. Johnlp (talk) 17:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all as per above comments. Störm (talk) 12:30, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like these lists simply need to be improved with well-sourced prose, which is attainable for most (if not all). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:46, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made some modest improvements to the text at List of England Test wicket-keepers to better show the potential of these articles, that they are capable of being improved to the point where they meet WP:NOTSTATS. Does that help people? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per The Pope. St Anselm (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2021 (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.