Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 October 30

Category:Wicket-keepers – Allow recreation of top-level categories. This was a confusing discussion to sift through. A lot of the participants are not DRV regulars. That's fine, they're entitled to their opinion, but since they're not familiar with normal DRV process and jargon, things got a little confusing. In particular, there's no clear demarcation in much of this discussion between, "Was the close correct?" vs "Should the categories exist?". As a result, I'm going to punt on any strict statement of endorse-vs-overturn regarding the CfD close itself. There is, however, reasonably good consensus that the top-level categories (which I guess means just means, Category:Wicket-keepers, singular, but I could have missed something there) may be recreated, but not the sub-categories. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Following a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Pakistan Test wicket-keepers, most of us agree that categories are a better way to navigate than lists. But cricket categories were deleted in the early part of the current year, following a discussion, poorly attended by WP:CRIC members, nominated by User:Joseph2302 who has been blocked indefinitely. Category:Goalkeepers and sub-categories are examples of navigation by categories used by various sports. There is no navigation by list currently for such type.

Navigation used by cricket is inherently flawed. For example, List of Pakistan Test wicket-keepers is full of statistics which falls under WP:NOTSTATS, and could be easily covered under List of Pakistan Test cricketers with minor changes. So, there is no need to copy stats specifically for wicket-keepers.

I, therefore, request to permit us to recreate those deleted categories. Thanks. Störm (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. We do need navigation for these articles, but not list articles that can only be constantly out of date, while our Cats work effortlessly. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 17:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is the previous deletion discussion. I agree that the top-level category should be restored, but not to have the sub-cats, per the rationale brought up at the CfD ("...as it's not a defining characteristic like being a batsman or bowler..."). Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Is there an issue of an error by the closer, or is this a request to re-create the category? I am confused about what are defining and non-defining categories. In North America, we call them catchers, and they have a similar role to ice hockey goalkeepers. So how do wicket-keepers differ from bowlers? Doesn't everybody bat? (And don't get into a discussion about designated hitters.) Don't only the wicket-keepers keep wicket? Don't only the bowlers bowl? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Wicket-keepers in cricket are functionally equivalent to catchers in baseball, and catchers in baseball have their own category. Bowlers are equivalent to baseball pitchers. Everybody bats, similar to the National League, so cricket places a premium on "all-rounders," specifically players which are simultaneously good bowlers and batters, since there are no substitutions in cricket - if you're not bowling, you have to play in the field somewhere, and fielding positions aren't fixed as they are with baseball (and don't get into a discussion about defensive shifts.) Would support overturning per S Marshall, below. SportingFlyer T·C 13:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion at the cricket Wikiproject here which supported getting rid of them. It looks like the categories of most cricketing positions were deleted back in 2006 because it was difficult to determine whether a category was appropriate to a particular person, given that all cricketers have to bat and lots of batters also do some bowling. The wicketkeeper categories were spared this because it was felt to be a more specialised position. This CfD wasn't very well attended, the nominator has since been indeffed, and the major argument was that the 2006 precedent also applied, which seems a bit dubious to me. I don't know enough about cricket to have a position one way or the other but I think reopening the issue would be justifiable. Hut 8.5 19:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I can't fault the closing admin for closing it as delete because the consensus there was clear. Allow recreating the top level category but not the various national sub-categories. Reyk _YO! 08:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In many CFD discussions, as with this one, there aren't any policies that are really applicable, and only one guideline (WP:CLN) which is routinely misapplied or disregarded. With apologies to Dweller because I'm about to contradict him pretty hard, CLN specifically says that categories, lists and navigation templates are not mutually exclusive and should be allowed to coexist. In other words, where there can be a list, there can be a category, and vice versa. The subject discussion was poorly-attended; it reached a conclusion contrary to Wikipedia's only applicable rule or guideline; and it gave no reasons why the rule should be ignored. Overturn, and I don't mean "allow re-creation", I do specifically mean "overturn" because I'm saying the outcome was definitively wrong.—S Marshall T/C 14:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's totally OK. I was more reflecting on the status of the list article, which without a category had a real need/purpose, but with a recreated category, we can safely let the list article go without losing navigation. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We don't have Category:Right-handed batsman, or Category:Silly mid-on fielders, or Category:Slow left-arm orthodox bowlers. Overcategorisation, pure and simple. StickyWicket (talk) 10:27, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AssociateAffiliate Cricket teams select two types of player with categorisation: captains and wicketkeepers. As you well know, there's even a symbol system, pretty much universal all over the world, for these two roles, and no others. So arguing against by mentioning fielding positions and types of spinners is a strawman. It's a good analogy of Goalkeepers in Category:Association football players by position, whereas I might agree with you about some of the other subcats in that header. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Kalki Avatar and Muhammad (book) – AfD endorsed. Barkeep49 (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

The page had enough reliable sources for living in wikipedia. Lazy-restless 18:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - The appellant doesn't seem to be arguing any error by the closer, or any other reason to overturn. It looks like a valid AFD with a valid close. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also didn't know that, article creator can vote, otherwise I voted on Afd. And not all sources are mention only, there are many rs that discussed the book abbreviately along with the subject topic. Lazy-restless 19:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin comment: Lazy-restless did participate in the AFD and I considered their comments, even if there was no bolded "vote". Another editor provided a detailed review of the sources and concluded they were not sufficient to show notability; all other participants besides Lazy-restless agreed. This seemed sufficient to close the discussion as Delete at the time, and I haven't seen anything new to change that conclusion, which is why I declined the request to re-open the AFD. --RL0919 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse ther wee no obvious problems with the discussion and consensus was clear. But permit a new version to be created as a draft space -- perhaps better sources cab be found, But the nominator needs to understand that reasonable quality sources with some depth of coverage are needed, or this will go nowhere. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The discussion was clear - if the article is indeed notable, no real issues with a draft, but the sources as presented were judged to be insufficient for an article. SportingFlyer T·C 13:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse proper XfD close per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS Lightburst (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.