Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond

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 Wally Hammond. – Joe (talk) 20:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Wally Hammond[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 consensus about such lists is that they should not exist unless there is coverage in reliable sources where they are discussed as a group. As no coverage was found, so this list fails WP:NLIST. Störm (talk) 08:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the recently closed (as merge) discussions have shown that you are talking shit. Spike 'em (talk) 09:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Which discussion? Link it. Srijanx22 (talk) 17:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and not merge to player article per WP:NOTSTATS as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal. Ajf773 (talk) 19:43, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No need for separate article, WP:NOTSTATS does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:01, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - note to closing admin - there was a RfC on this and the consensus on WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not true: "There's no consensus here that they should universally be included. Nor is there a clear consensus that such sections should be removed from all cricketer articles." _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:22, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with very strong NO merge. Hammond's article is a Featured Article. It made FA status, on the back of Sarastro1's work without needing a table such as this. It should stay as such. Although I can see the place for stats tables, and might consider one or two very short summary tables, it's clear that we can write FA's without them. That should give us a pretty good indication that they are unnecessary. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Detailing significant numbers in prose alone is cumbersome and impairs readability, so tables are the way to go, especially in a statistics driven sport. There is no reason to believe FA status would be affected by having such a table, and some would view it as an improvement. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:12, 27 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.