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 Strong Keep (closed by non-admin) as per consensus and WP:SNOW. RMHED (talk) 19:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricketers called for throwing[edit]

List of international cricketers called for throwing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Do we really need a list of cricketers called for chucking? It's not really what you'd consider encyclopaedic, a list of people who infringed a randomly selected law of the game, and it does rather seem to be against the spirit of WP:BLP. I'd say it's just not cricket, myself. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Dismiss it From what I know about cricket, this list would be a monster. Blueboy96 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep ... I thought it was just a partial list, not the full list. Blueboy96 04:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. It is encyclopaedic. Chucking is not "a randomly selected law of the game"; it is much more that that; it is virtually a taboo. Being called for chucking has destroyed careers and generated animosity between nations. And the list won't be a monster - from what I can tell it is complete now. Hesperian 22:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Totally agree with Hesperian. I can't think of anymore to add to that list. Hammer1980·^talk 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, list seems to be mostly complete, and verification probably shouldn't be too hard -- given the amount of literature written on "throwing" (I count four books), I would say that it's definitely a notable taboo in the game. And believe me when I say that I know bupkis about cricket. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep only very few get called for chucking and people basically get run out of the game for doing it. Usually, the selectors will decline to select people who are called. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:43, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, this is a good idea for a list on a topic which is oh-so-notable. The inclusion criteria is well-defined, logical and arbitary (no unsourced gossip, it has to be ICC-based). Daniel 23:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This is a highly notable subject and who and who hasn't been called for throwing in a match is a matter of historical record. Anyone who thinks this a 'randomly selected' law of the game doesn't know much about the sport or its history. This nomination is a complete waste of time and the nomination of articles by someone who clearly doesn't know anything about the subject at hand, or indeed the BLP policy, isn't helping build the encyclopedia. Nick mallory (talk) 00:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with your first 2½ sentences, but I think you'll find Guy's understanding of BLP is above reproach, as is his general commitment to helping build the encyclopedia. We all make the occasional misjudgement, so let's not be too hard on him for this one. Hesperian 00:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not been my experience of his judgement but I'll take your word for it. Moondyne seems of the same mind as me though. Nick mallory (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not true Nick. My question is a good faith enquiry of an editor for whom I have great respect. You would do well to assume good faith from all parties, but I know from past exchanges we've had as well as a quick read of your current talk page that that is a struggle for you. —Moondyne 14:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep as creator. Notable per all of above. I don't fully understand the rationales in the nomination: Not encyclopaedic:? a number of scientific articles have been written on the subject.(see references at end of article) Randomly selected? its part of the Laws of Cricket. Not in the spirit of BLP: WP is not censored. Its this last one (BLP) that the nominator raised I'd be interested in him explaining. —Moondyne 00:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep chucking my 2 cents in, chucking is a career altering event. As for BLP I can understand that the stigma of being labeled a chucker would need to supported by strong references.Gnangarra 04:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Notable inclussion criteria. Lugnuts (talk) 09:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly notable, encyclopaedic and comprehensive. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 11:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. Throwing has been at the heart of some of the biggest controversies in the sport. Johnlp (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Aside from match-fixing and text messaging, throwing is probably one of the most like talked about things in the world of cricket. Twenty Years 14:20, 19 November 2007 (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.