Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of World XI 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 delete List of World XI wicket-keepers. No consensus as to the remainder without any prejudice to relisting; these were a late addition to this AFD by a different editor than the nominator (who didn't even agree they should have been added here). Modifying AFDs to add nominations after discussion has already progressed on the original nomination is generally not a sound practice. postdlf (talk) 17:44, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of World XI wicket-keepers

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

A clear redundant content fork of both List of World XI Test cricketers and List of World XI ODI cricketers. I have made one small edit to both of those pages to mark wicket-keepers in the lists, and now all information presented in this table is available in those ones. There is clearly no need for a 'list' which is actually two mini-lists containing a total of three players. Harrias ^talk 20:40, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is redundant to have it now.Greenbörg (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the best solution in this case. Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:03, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because we are using daggers to identify who is wk in their respective lists:

Comment I think we are using tables of catches and stumps table for almost every list. We only need to made minor edits and things will wrap up. Why not nominate remaining too? Greenbörg (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I would rather you didn't add more. World XI is a clear case where the parent lists are high quality and include all the information for an obviously undersized content fork. The ones you've added so far I can probably agree with as similar cases, although the parent list is not always of such good quality. List of Australia Test wicket-keepers and List of Australia Test cricketers is a very different argument though, and not one that should really be conflated with this. Harrias ^talk 08:46, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of World XI wicket-keepers per Harrias above and delete List of East Africa ODI wicket-keepers. Strong keep all the rest. Rationale is that the World XI was a one-off team that may never be formed again and East Africa was a short-lived confederation that will never be revived so those two lists have no growth potential. The others are current international teams which will continue. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the single article nominated. The other articles which a different user has appended should be discussed separately, and should be a Keep until that happens. Johnlp (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nominator's rationale. There is no need to have standalone articles which basically say X and Y are the only players to have kept wickets for Z team. Dee 03 14:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as above, none of them are needed. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:47, 5 July 2017 (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.