Question: Regarding: [Sachin Tendulkar's bowling record](https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/2632/sachin-tendulkars-bowling-record)

In said question, the following was omitted:

> 
> Does the batting sensation hold any other such fascinating bowling records to his name?
> 
> 
> 

As of the writing of this post, three close votes for "Too Localized" have been given (see: [Range of localization for Sports questions](https://sports.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/278/range-of-localization-for-sports-questions?rq=1)). Given that [`trivia`](https://sports.stackexchange.com/questions/tagged/trivia) is [on-topic](https://sports.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/260/sports-trivia-evaluation) for Sports SE, its content should be [consistent](https://sports.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/339/consistency-in-trivia-content).

**Does said omission deserve a close vote for "Too Localized" or for any reason at all? Why or why not?** Also, is said omission "provoking" to anyone?

Answer: 
Here's why I initially tried to edit this into some semblance of order, and then ultimately decided I'd vote to close (I don't really care the reason, but TL fits here and I'll explain why). 

First the merits of the question. This started out as a bad question, the line you quoted there was my main concern and I initially felt that editing that out might make this a serviceable question. It's (if cricket keeps records anywhere near as thoroughly as baseball does) answerable and it's not subjective at all (does x hold stat y).

However, and this is where a judgement call comes into play, asking about a single batter vs a single bowler is something akin to asking "has Roy Halliday struck out Albert Pujols more times than any other pitcher?" I'd immediately vote to close that as too localized because that's just not interesting to anyone other than the biggest trivia nut (and it's really not all that interesting in general). Single batter vs Single pitcher stats in baseball are basically meaningless because there is rarely a significant enough sample to make a judgment on. I don't know Cricket, but applying the same rules there seems reasonable.
I voted to close. As edmastermind29 points out, this forms part of an ongoing discussion about how to handle 'trivia' questions and also 'statistics' questions. Some trivia/stats questions a good, and some are sufficiently poor as to warrant closure so as to not encourage more such poor questions. How could the distinction be clearly stated? I don't know, maybe it isn't possible. In the end it will come down to a judgement call.

To my mind, that question is too localised, since it is such an obscure, highly specific question that is unlikely to be asked again. The criteria for *any* question on a SE site is that the question and answers to it would form part of a useful archive of information. Good questions are not meant to be merely something to satisfy the momentary curiosity of the asker, they are meant to last as a record of information that people will want to know in the future. This is not a forum, this is a Q&A site.

More questions is not always better. For potential new users who stumble across this site, seeing lots of poor question such as that is NOT going to encourage them to stick around.