Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace

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. (non-admin closure) The Herald (Benison) (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of first-class cricket centuries by W. G. Grace[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The cricketer does not even have the most number of first class cricket centuries. For example, Jack Hobbs does not have a page for his fc centuries. For convention, this has beend done for cricketers having more than 25 international centuries. Hence, this article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharaoh496 (talk • contribs) 06:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2024 April 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, Lists, and England. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I understand the motive for this nomination, given we usually have limit the number of articles like this to record holders for nations etc, but given Grace is probably one of the games greatest players, and one of the players instrumental in the development of the game an article like this, which is incredibly well sourced and deemed good enough to be a featured article is good enough to keep it. There is coverage in articles of his hundreds also, whether in biographies, or more recently in debate whether or not one of many of his hundreds were first class. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There would be as good players. People can make properly sources articles - but its first class, and not international test cricket; not being as notable Pharaoh496 (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is irrelevant, as there's significant coverage of his centuries. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Don’t make rules by your own. It doesn’t matter if he’s the highest century scorer or not. The minimum threshold of 25 int. centuries is an informal guideline. The fact is that his centuries have been discussed and received coverage in multiple books and online articles. Clearly satisfies the criteria of WP:NLIST and WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 14:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep his centuries are covered in multiple books, and therefore passes WP:GNG and WP:NLIST, particularly One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable Page and clearly passes WP:GNG coverage. 103.121.36.100 (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2024 (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.