Deletion of List of international cricket five-wicket hauls on Irish cricket grounds

Comment: per previous AfD outcome for the lists of centuries and    and . With regards to the featured lists, we should leave those until after this discussion to establish whether we have a clear precedent to keep/remove
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS||WP:NOTIINFO||WP:NOTMIRROR||WP:FANCRUFT)

Comment: for a number of reasons: 1. the previous AfD does not establish some sort of precedent for every page - I note these discussions have been dominated by users such as Störm and Ajf773 who take particularly strong views (and in my view often incorrect, if you read previous AfDs) on the use of cricket statistics in articles, and I note the previous discussion wasn't properly shared with relevant deletion-discussion lists (particularly country-related ones) which would enable a broader range of users to have input (like this AfD does). It appears that a view has been taken that the individual AfD should be used as some sort of RfC for whether these types of statistics are notable or not - that isn't the case and it doesn't accord with Wikipedia policy on what AfDs are to be used for, there should be a RfC or broader discussion on the relevant WikiProject where proper consensus and consultation is done if that is to be the case; 2. The pages are NOT a violation of  - that requires excessive lists of indiscriminate statistics, but 5 wicket hauls and centuries at particular grounds are, in many cases, things that have been covered by other independent sources, so they're not indiscriminate (also taking into account lists of centuries and 5-wicket hauls are fairly limited), and they're not excessive - the argument that they are just Cricinfo mirrors is simply not correct (and the Featured List articles metioned above prove that point); 3. The point about the articles being able to be improved is a valid and relevant point; 4. Even if (contrary to everything I have already said) there is a consensus that stand-alone articles shouldn't exist, none of the arguments put by the proponents of deletion show that it's not inappropriate to merge to the relevant cricket ground etc. articles that would override |Wikipedia policy on alternatives to deletion - in the context of articles that are largely prose text, statistics about 5-wicket hauls and centuries (the summary achievements in a match for a bowler and batter respectively) are not inappropriate or indiscriminate and also don't violate . The mass nomination here, while in good faith and to avoid the mess of recent AfDs on individual batsmen and bowler centuries and 5-wicket hauls, doesn't give users the proper ability to analyse each article to determine the appropriateness of another option before deletion is able to be considered. All of the above show that these should be kept; if there are inappropriate entries in the above list, reasons should be put forward specifically on those pages to show why they are inappropriate
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD||WP:NOTSTATS)

Comment: cruft is only an essay, it is not policy, and is |not a reason for deletion. Cricket statistics are in many instances covered by multiple independent reliable sources. This can't just be a delete all, the nominators need to show why it is inappropriate to not keep or merge
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ITSCRUFT)