Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International awards by Sanath Jayasuriya

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 Redirect both, to Sanath Jayasuriya and Sachin Tendulkar respectively. If anyone wants to WP:MERGE any history into the main articles, that history will still be there in the redirect, so feel free to copy material across, while maintaining attribution of course.. — Amakuru (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International awards by Sanath Jayasuriya

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

I am also nominating the following related page for the reason below:

Listcruft. Just a collection of stats with no real context and/or notability. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 13:34, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as listcruft. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:58, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 09:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 10:01, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:47, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another AFD regarding a WP:SPLIT that should have been addressed through normal editing and discussion. Both Sanath Jayasuriya and Sachin Tendulkar have articles, and these lists explain who they are. So I'm not sure where the "no real context and/or notability" claims come from. The only question I see here is whether this level of detail is appropriate so as to merit standalone articles for these athletes' awards; if it isn't, then WP:SMERGE and redirect back to the parent articles would seem to be the proper outcome. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator also deserves a WP:TROUT for not using an edit summary when nominating either article for AFD, which undermines proper notice of this discussion to anyone who had the pages watchlisted.[1],[2] postdlf (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries are not mandatory. The addition of 465kb of text should make you take a further look, if needed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:46, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"not mandatory" is far from an argument for its omission being justifiable, let alone good practice. Not doing it makes it appear as if you're trying to do it under the radar (see WP:FIES). And regardless of your excuses, it is actually part of stated deletion nomination procedure at WP:AFDHOWTO. postdlf (talk) 18:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone deserves a trout, it's you for failing to WP:AGF. The nominated page has fewer than 30 people watching it (my guess is it is just one, the person who started the article). I did however, notify the Cricket Project (here), which has 258 page watchers. A bit rich of you to go on about edit summaries for AfDs, when your record in this area is limited to just the automated summary of using a tool to close them. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to their player articles. A very, very selective merge may be appropriate - perhaps a sentence or two from the lead might belong in their articles. The Tendulkar list relies on two lists from CricInfo - one of which is dynamic and requires significant synthesis to make any further use of and one of which is now very old (2006 is a long time in ODI cricket) - and begins to rely upon the use of individual match-by-match reference to scorecard information. The Jayasuriya list relies totally on scorecards and any lead section in that seems to be entirely based upon synthesis. None of that, in my view, generates enough proper, in depth coverage to suggest that a stand alone list is a good idea here. I remain utterly unconvinced as well that being named a "player of the match" in most games of cricket is a notable thing in and of itself. In a final, yes, probably; for a particularly noteworthy performance that sets a significant record, yes, sure. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to their respective articles per BST. Störm (talk) 12:23, 5 June 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.