Deletion of List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Graham McKenzie

Comment: Firstly, the claim that the RfC had a consensus to cover all cricket articles is a complete lie, the closing administrator noted that "here's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles". Secondly, I simply don't believe that there is no source that would compile his five wicket hauls together, but the obvious solution is to merge the list of five wicket hauls to Graham McKenzie. A valid |alternative to deletion that is not inappropriate. The sourcing is entirely fine for an article outside of a list. Deletion is a poor and lazy option here and editors need to find other solutions rather than just nominating the article for deletion.The nominator has a clear bias against particular cricket articles and needs to stop nominating them for deletion when a clear alternative exists and they are '''required''' to consider those before deleting
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: per /. {{tq|"To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources."}} This article is just a list of scores from ESPNCricinfo and has no independent sources covering these individual achievements as a set. Agree with nom that there should be no precedent to include these on players' articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS||WP:RAWDATA)

Comment: to Graham McKenzie (removing details of the batsmen dismissed). No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per  and , and would enhance the content there. International five-wicket hauls are a noteworthy achievement, and by definition, a list of them within the main article has the necessary context and explanation, so does not fail NOTSTATS in this regard. Unfortunately the nom seems to be misrepresenting the consensus of the cited RFC, which closed: {{tq|"There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS||WP:SPLIT)