Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Twenty20 International cricket matches

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. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:53, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of Twenty20 International cricket matches

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

I am also nominating the following related pages because the same problems arise:

Delete. A hopelessly BAD idea because a list like this will not be maintained. Fails WP:NOTSTATS, WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Anyone wanting to see a list of these matches is better referred to one of the two main specialist sites that publish cricket statistics. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - above is not policy reason for deletion as the matches are clearly notable. And there is precedent for recording results of international matches over long periods eg England national football team results – 2000s JMWt (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On further reflection, although the topic is notable, it does seem problematic to lay out the page like this, particularly if the match results themselves are listed per year in other pages. I'm not sure what value there is in knowing how many matches there were per year and it is hard to see how to do it any differently given the volume of stats. So unsure now JMWt (talk) 16:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - WHAT is the bad thing you can see here. If you check you can see many other worst articles in the Wikipedia. This is not such a thing. Some one said that we can search matches from cricket areas. If it is correct, all the other cricket stats also can watch from those sites, also about cricketers as well. But, who is going to delete those cricketers pages. No..no one will do that, they will say they are important. But as they are important, these articles are also important. They are clearly marked and categorized. Those who cannot reach cricket articles can read them here. And I much say this, Wikipedia is an ENCYCLOPEDIA... So, those who wants to delete these pages should know what is the meaning of encyclopedia. I regret their idea completely. These pages are needed and important for all cricket articles. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 12:31, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOTMIRROR. Anyone looking for a list of these matches will already be aware of CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo. Both those websites are updated in real-time by people who are paid to do so; Wikipedia is not, and there is no reason for us to maintain a poor-quality mirror of their lists. IgnorantArmies (talk) 07:13, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. "Poor-quality mirror" neatly summarises the problems. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:18, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete agree with the NOTMIRROR argument. Note that if the parent lists get deleted, then there are lots of child lists, such as Test cricket matches results (2010–14), Test cricket matches results (1975–79), One Day International matches results (1980–84), Twenty20 International matches results (2005–09), etc (I'm not going to list them all, but you can see them from the template footer on each one). Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 09:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - poor quality mirror summarises my feelings entirely. Absolutely no need and a waste of bytes. Blue Square Thing (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2016 (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.