Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham

Add links
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 redirect to Tom Latham (cricketer). Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. Daniel (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham[edit]

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

List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NLIST as it says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Störm (talk) 22:02, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 23:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge Have you never heard of WP:MULTIAFD or are you deliberately being disruptive? My keep reasons are on one of the other related AfDs that this should have been bundled with. Spike 'em (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:NLIST first and then re-comment. Policies change with time, based on the consensus, so articles/lists should reflect that. You should link your reasoning as your rationale doesn't make sense. Closing admin should ignore such comments. Störm (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok: to expand on partially quoted WP:NLIST : 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 and There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. There is clearly no consensus that the only notability criteria for a standalone list is that is has been discussed as a group. There is also the guidance in WP:NOTSTATS that : Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Spike 'em (talk) 15:18, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTSTATS is a general guideline that applies to all articles with statistics. It is not limited to lists and in your quoted text it even doesn't mention that it applies to the list. Störm (talk) 11:29, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is not indiscriminate information : a century is a significant achievement in a Test match, and I agree with Wjemather that if a standalone article is not necessary then this is valid information to put on a player's page. NOTSTATS acknowledges that some statistical information is valid, and says we should not have Excessive listings of unexplained statistics. One list of achievements, with an explanation, is not excessive. Spike 'em (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If any significant career achievements should be worthy of mention they should in prose form, with independent secondary sources, on the players' articles. As they are currently, they are just a list of instances where a player scored a century, accompanied by its match reference on Cricinfo. This is the type of stats we should avoid, Wikipedia isn't a fansite. I do not support merging for that reason either. Ajf773 (talk) 08:31, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability Spike 'em (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is whether a list of all matches in which the player scored an international century is noteworthy in the first place. Ajf773 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to main article of the subject. Santosh L (talk) 13:56, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not sure if you actually looked at the article history but the article has already been proposed for deletion but it was overturned. Other cricket players with only very few more centuries have these type of articles which have not been put up for deletion. Latham is only going to continue to score more centuries and if this article is deleted it will very soon have to be created again. (talk)
  • That's not really a good reason to keep an article. If the topic ever does get to a situation where it needs to be created again, then a redirect (where history is retained) is plausible. Also there is no harm for someone to draftify the article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other outcomes of 'List of international cricket centuries..' articles. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per other similar lists. Just indiscriminate stats, available on stats sites elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_international_cricket_centuries_by_Tom_Latham&oldid=1001534530"