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 keep As the respondents note, though, it seriously needs a rewrite. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 03:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket poetry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is a recitation of cricket poems that predates the widespread use of wikisource. Content should be moved there and this non-encyclopedic page deleted. agtx 01:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Poetry and Cricket. agtx 01:33, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, but rewrite. After quick search, there does seem to be quite a lot written about cricket poetry, some of it in very good academic sources, so I think it might well pass WP:GNG. Though it may be better dealt with as part of a cricket in literature page. The article in its current state needs rewritten from scratch though.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per the above by Boynamedsue. The article needs a complete rewrite, becoming an article detailing the history of cricket in poetry. StickyWicket (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wisden has this feature on cricket and poetry for starters, and the sources already in the article show a WP:GNG pass. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:12, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But agree that it needs a rewrite. It's suffered over the years from people adding their favourite piece of sub-poetry when it often has no literary merit or historical significance. JH (talk page) 15:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Subject does pass GNG, but as others say this will need a re-write, has been mentioned on the cricket WikiProject so hopefully an editor will do so in the near future. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 20:48, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have no problem if an encyclopedic rewrite is possible. I just didn't want to trash a bunch of transwiki-able content by clearing out the page. That said, from the comments here, aren't we at the point where we should WP:NUKEIT? agtx 21:39, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say yes, perhaps even rename the article Cricket in Literature, redirect the title, and have that split between prose and poetry. We might be best trying to get WP:CRICKET on board, as it would be a hell of a job. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2022 (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.