Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of nicknames used in cricket

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 no consensus. –MuZemike 06:17, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames used in cricket

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

A list of trivia, with many unsourced personal overtones and dubious claims. If people want to find player nicknames, they would most likely go straight to the players article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

_{I have notified the IP at User talk:122.61.57.67 as he appears to be an interested party. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 11:41, 4 December 2011 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Pointless trivia that sits at a level of immaturity, prevalent years ago, from which the site is rapidly evolving. The list is bound to be contentious in any case as nicknames constantly change. More seriously, I would point out potential WP:BLP consequences as it would be very easy to list a nickname that the target finds insulting. In fact, for that reason it should be a speedy delete. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 12:01, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Interesting and (for the most part) well-sourced. Could do with some additional sources, would be great to see it expanded too. -- Michel Vuijlsteke (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems quite easy to find sources for this such as this. The topic is therefore notable and should be kept in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Jack. This was started by me years ago wheh such things were acceptable but I'm glad to see that Wikipedia has moved on. Unencyclopaedic and best left to the newspapers and fansites. Moondyne (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is easy to find coverage of such stuff in encyclopedia, e.g. "Alfred Mynn (1807-1861), nicknamed 'the lion of Kent' and Alfred the Great', was the most famous cricketer of the first half of the 19th century." (Encyclopedia of British Sport) Notice that Alfred Mynn and his nicknames are not in the list, even though he was an especially famous cricketer. This indicates that the list has not been done thoroughly and so has much scope for improvement per our editing policy. See also WP:UNENCYC: "Unencyclopedic" is an empty argument. Warden (talk) 09:11, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may have a point re WP:UNENCYC as that tends to be subjective. But could you comment on WP:BLP which is implicit here as explained above? ----Jack | ^{talk page} 20:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP requires that content about living people should be reliably sourced, which most of this article's content appears to be. It doesn't mandate the removal of all content that subjects might find embarrassing. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the nomination indicates that the nicknames are still expected to be found in the players' articles so I can't see that there's any special BLP problem with this list. The main problem I'm seeing is that of WP:RECENTISM. Where, for example, is W. G. Grace whose nicknames included, The Doctor, The Old Man and The Champion? How can anyone work on a cricketing list without considering him - it's amazing!? Warden (talk) 23:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Covert to a category of redirects Category:Redirects to Cricketers from their nicknames. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:50, 9 December 2011 (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.