Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/99.94

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Merge to Donald Bradman. I'm reading the delete opinions as not objecting to the content being covered in Bradman's article. A redirect after the merge is complete will satisfy anybody who does search for the batting average. Yomanganitalk 10:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 99.94

99.94 is not itself notable; in a cricketing context, any content worthy of inclusion must actually be about incidents and achievements in Donald Bradman's test career, not about the number. RobertG ♬ talk 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment. The article is about achievement... perhaps the most supreme achievement ever accomplished by any sportsman. --Dweller 17:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --RobertG ♬ talk 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - The 99.94 article emerged from a conversation at the cricket Wikiproject. 99.94 is a number of huge significance to millions of cricket lovers the world over. It is probably the most famous statistic in the sport and the articles should not be merged. Rather, the 99.94 article needs some further expansion. --Dweller 17:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • You mean here? I don't read that discussion as a consensus to create an article. I do not disagree that the number is of interest, and a matter for wonder: I am merely trying to find out whether it is verifiably notable. I'm willing to be convinced, but what can possibly go in the article that should not be in the Donald Bradman article? Similarly, it's Bradman that's notable, not the number that happens to be his average. Can you think of a cricketing event that would have turned out differently as a result of Bradman averaging more (or less)? Can I take a musical analogy? Consider: should 9 be documented as the number of symphonies Beethoven wrote? The symphonies are documented at Beethoven, and the influence of the number is documented at curse of the ninth. My point is that it's not 9 that's notable in that context, it just happens to be the number of symphonies he wrote: it's the influence the number had on other composers. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • The figure is notable, like a Beethoven symphony, or an album by The Verve. It was the product of an extraordinarily superhuman career and a touchingly human incident at the end of that career. It can and does include information that is overly detailed for the main Bradman article and to which I'm continuing to add. --Dweller 18:39, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually, Beethoven is mentioned in 9 (number). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, don't merge. This information is aptly covered in Donald Bradman's article, and the coverage there could be expanded. However, this article is not about 99.94 the number or (obviously) 99.94 the year, and the idea of an article under the topic being about this seems ludicrous. Unless 99.94 is some kind of notable neologism, or a nickname for Donald Bradman, we shouldn't have a redirect from 99.94 to Donald Bradman, so we should delete. Mangojuicetalk 17:30, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. I'm perplexed. I thought that the criterion was notability. It doesn't need to be a neologism (>50 years since he retired, unlikely to be new) or was someone's nickname. --Dweller 17:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Here, the issue is naming. Does this info belong in an encyclopedia? Sure, I think it does. Should it be in an article about "99.94"? I really don't think so. It should absolutely be in an article about Bradman (it is), and other articles about Cricket more generally, or even an article on outstanding records in sports generally. Or, put it from another perspective: this may be the most important thing to say about the number 99.94, but in the scheme of numbers, 99.94 is quite unimportant, and right now all we have there is an article about 99.94 that includes one piece of trivia. Mangojuicetalk 22:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - merge any info not already there into D.Bradman. 99.94 not a notable number outside of cricket so does not justify own article. Lethaniol 17:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment I wasn't aware that notability criteria meant that subjects had to be notable outside of their own area. You might as well argue for deleting Asda for not being notable outside of shops/shopping. --Dweller 18:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge with Donald Bradman. That would be like creating the article 1.12 just for Bob Gibson's 1968 ERA, or .406 for Ted Williams' 1941 season. Wildthing61476 18:24, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I don't know much about baseball, but if those figures were astonishingly, staggeringly better (by c.65%) than anything anyone else has achieved over a career and they're figures known to millions all over the world, I'd say they may be notable too. --Dweller 18:41, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I would say those statistics are in a rather different category, because they're statistics for one season, not a whole career. 2632 might be a better example, and that is in 2000 (number). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Information is already located in two other places. I'm really big on pointing out the precedent not deleting certain articles would set. If we keep this then every number that has statistical significance in sports must be kept (the number of most homeruns in baseball, for example) which is clearly ridiculous and unencyclopedic. Statistical information like this is important in the context of the articles on the sport, the person achieving the record and the article on records in that sport. It, however, does not need its own article. --The Way 19:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Yes, fantastic achievement, but the proper place for the information is in the Bradman article. No need at all for a separate article here. - fchd 20:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see talk page for a proposed rename of the article

  • Strong Keep 99.94 is absolutely unique and of special significance to millions of cricket fans all over the world. Though it may not seem important to those who live in non-cricketing countries, I assure you it is very significant to cricket fans. Jayanta Sen 21:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep. I'm a bit torn on this one, but I think it's worth keeping. I'm almost persuaded by Wildthing's argument that we are opening the floodgates to lots of other numbers that happen to be sports statistics. But in the end, I can't think of anything quite as iconic as Bradman's average, that isn't an integer (integers already have good homes). Stephen Turner (Talk) 21:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. The number isn't significant or notable, Bradman is. Nobody is ever going to search for 99.94 and go "ooh, look Don Bradman averaged 99.94" QuiteUnusual 21:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. There's no point discussing this number outside the context of Don Bradman, and any information that would go on this page is better placed on Bradman's page. -dmmaus 22:48, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Since its in the Bradman article, why does it need to be here? I agree that this will lead to other 'statistic' articles. 755 (868 in Japan), 4,256, 2,131. And every single person will be able to argue that theirs is special for one reason or another like the proponents have here. Montco 23:14, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment 2,131? Don't you mean 2,632? :) Wildthing61476 23:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I didn't mean it them, but I do now. Was never a big Ripken fan.Montco 00:03, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete The number is probably unique but I doubt anybody would ever want to specifically search for Bradman's average. GizzaChat © 23:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I'd argue that this is a notable statistic all on its own. Lankiveil 00:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC).
  • Merge with Donald Bradman notably statistical assessment. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation has PO Box 9994 in each city it is based in honour of this average see [1]. However that is better discussed in the Bradman article. Capitalistroadster 03:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 03:12, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge - belongs with Don Bradman stuff. JROBBO 03:19, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete Is this result something that might be discussed by anyone not knowing who Don Bradman is? If the answer to this is no, it shouldn't have a separate article. If somebody convinces me it's yes (or irrelevant), I'll consider changing to Weak Keep (though I realize this is not a vote). Delta Tango • Talk 03:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • redirect to Donald Bradman, merging if necessary; I can't see any possible content for this article that wouldn't belong in that one. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Very weak keep. The article contains some more substance now than when the AfD started, but wouldn't mind it if it is merged into Bradman or a related article. Tintin (talk) 06:13, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge. I have nothing else to say that hasn't already been said. This isn't notable enough for its own article, but absolutely notable enough to have even more context than already exists in the Bradman article. -- Kicking222 13:29, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This article has been included in the list of number-related deletions. Confusing Manifestation 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers, A record is worth mentioning if it is from a Major League player, or if it appears in the Guinness Book of World Records. Be sure to indicate the year the record was set in order to facilitate removal when a new record is set. Now the Guinness site is not forthcoming with any information, although a Google search did give me a tantalising result to guinnessworldrecords.co.uk/au, which turned out not to work. It is a notable statistic, and there are many Australians who would be able to answer you "What's the significance of 99.94?" even if they don't know much about cricket. Still, the number is only really notable in relation to Bradman, so I would suggest either have the article redirect to his article, or else have it redirect to 99 (or possibly 9000 (number), where 9994 would go), and include a mention of it there, in parallel to way integers are listed on collective pages. Confusing Manifestation 14:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment Note that the above policy says a 'record is worth mentioning' which is logically disctinct from saying a 'record is worth having its own independent article' --The Way 18:51, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Should have already be listed at Donald Bradman. Should not be a separate article or redirect at this "name". If GFDL requires a merge, then edit to a redirect, then move the source to Test cricket batting average record. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:49, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. It seems to me that the main problem is that the number is not an integer. If it were an integer, it would have a proper home. Do Wikipedia:WikiProject Numbers have a policy on the issue of notable numbers that aren't integers? Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:00, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
See the talk page for discussion of a rename away from a numeric. --Dweller 19:34, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Reluctant delete and take into into Bradman article. It is indeed an iconic number, but I simply don't see anybody searching for it as a number without reference to Bradman, and to give it its own article is non encyclopedic.Johnlp 22:59, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you think someone will search for "0.999..."? --Dweller 07:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Comment to Dweller I was waiting for someone to bring that up (.999 was a featured article a few days ago). That's a mathematical article, which is a bit different. I'd say, at least personally, peculiar numbers like that which have a unique significance in mathematics and are more likely to be searched for by people looking for articles in that subject. And besides, .999 has nothing better to link to or be merged into, it's not associated with anything but itself and the abstract mathematical concepts underlying it. 99.94, on the other hand, IS associated with something that it relies upon. People are far more likely to search for the man associated with 99.94 than vice versa, the same is not the case for .999 and other mathematical numbers of significance. And notice that 3.14 redirects to Pi and not vice versa.. --The Way 07:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete As the originator (almost the only defender!) and only contributor to this article, I see no reason to fight what seems like overwhelming consensus. Some of the arguments presented here and on the talk page are very persuasive and I'd like to graciously concede. Will an admin please close this Afd. I'd argue for leaving a redirect to Bradman's article. I have pasted a copy of the 99.94 article into my sandbox and plan to gently insert appropriately into Bradman's main article, trying not to step on any toes along the way. No doubt there are a number of watchers of that article who'll keep me in line if I exceed the mark. Thank you everyone who participated in this Afd. I hope that my defence of the article has remained "vigorous" rather than "heated". --Dweller 08:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • keep- informative article. Nileena joseph 15:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep I immediately knew what the article was about on seeing the title. It is an australian/cricket special number, and the article goes a little way to reflecting that. No reason to delete. The number takes on "notability," as much as I hate that concept, due to its distance from the rest of the cricket world. Ansell 09:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge, 99.94 is about Donald Bradman, and him alone. —Pengo talk · contribs 00:18, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep it might not make much sense to people not familiar with cricket, but for cricket fans it does. It's unique atchievement. It should not be deleted, it should not be merged. This absolutely unique record deserves an article of its own. Encyclopaedia Editing Dude 20:11, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete already covered in Donald Bradman article no need for a article on it's own. Whispering 02:03, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_99.94_a275.html"