Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer

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 Justin Langer. – Joe (talk) 18:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer

List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

(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

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 Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge - I simply don't believe that there is no source that would compile his centuries together, but the obvious solution is to merge the list of centuries to
  alternative to deletion that is not inappropriate. The sourcing is entirely fine for an article outside of a list. Deletion is a poor and lazy option here and editors need to find other solutions rather than just nominating the article for deletion. Deus et lex (talk) 09:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge into main article per above. Nigej (talk) 16:05, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into main article as per above. Setreis (talk) 16:20, 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) 19:42, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment - a list of centuries in the player's article would not violate
    WP:NOTSTATS. The prohibition in that policy is for excessive listings of unexplained statistics. The proposal for a merge here is to merge one list of Langer's centuries only, which is a limited list, in which each entry is validly sourced and explained; centuries are a well-recognised achievement by a batsman in cricket so it's not indiscriminate or inappropriate to the article; and with a bit of background text the list can be easily incorporated as part of the main article. I'm actually not sure what the purpose of a redirect with no merging would be - the proposal for a merge is to maintain some of the content in a place that is potentially more appropriate for it. A merge is not inappropriate and is the best solution. Deus et lex (talk) 09:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• A merge sets a precedent that every cricketer needs his or her own list of centuries on their Wiki article. Lists of centuries are indeed statistics, and excessive, especially when the content is entirely sourced from one source (ESPNCricinfo). This is why I'm opposed to merging these articles into players' articles, key achievements should be summarised by prose, not as a table of individual innings/matches. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Those are poor responses that don't change anything I have said above. A merge does not set any sort of precedent. One list (of centuries, which are limited) is not excessive, and your comment that it is based on one source does not make it "unexplained" (and it's a stupid comment anyway, as cricket statistics can easily be found elsewhere (ever heard of Wisden, for example?)). Most of the article is prose anyway, adding a single table won't change things overall. Deus et lex (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know if you understood me the first time, but if a player has scored, say, 20 international centuries across all formats in the game, does that mean a player who has scored just three deserves a list under their profile. This is exactly the precedent we are setting by merging. Also can you define excessive? What is encyclopedic about knowing so many details about the match in which the player achieved each century? Ajf773 (talk) 08:57, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I perfectly understood you the first time. Your arguments are bad. This is an AfD for Justin Langer. It is not some request for comment about all cricket players, so don't try to make this something that it isn't and make spurious arguments. There is no "precedent". A century is the highest honour for a batsman, so adding in his individual centuries is encyclopaedic - it's sourced and valid. There is no valid argument for what you are trying to propose. Deus et lex (talk) 09:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It's NOT an AfD for Justin Langer. It's an AfD for a list of centuries scored by him and entirely sourced by a single reference and easily found using the statsguru underneath that reference. The only details that really matter are the number of career centuries, not every single little detail of when/where/how each one was attained. Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My point was that the AfD does not relate to lists of cricket centuries for every cricketer, it only relates to those by Justin Langer. Please stop trying to take points out of this to justify your claim, it just makes your points look even more spurious. Deus et lex (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• My vote to redirect (or delete) stands. And my reasoning applies to lists relating to any other international cricketer. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Your "reasoning" makes no sense, and that has been borne out here by the consensus. Deus et lex (talk) 12:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge My first preference is a small merge to keep some of the details. My second preference would be redirect. My third preference is delete. My last preference would be keep. WilliamSpeare (talk) 19:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into the main article. NavjotSR (talk) 16:08, 21 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) 09:00, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge. No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per
  WP:SPLIT. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:12, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• For those who cite
  WP:NOTSTATS, this policy applies to content no matter where it is presented. Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - note to closing admin - there was a
  WP:CRIC was to remove these statistics from bios per WP:NOTSTATS. Störm (talk) 06:56, 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 the possibility of some prose being added to the player's article. These sorts of tables need to be supported by prose and considered on an individual basis if they're going to be included on the individual's article. I would rather see a summary added than a table such as this - if this were added it needs to be massively cut down to ensure that it doesn't take over the page. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:54, 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. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:14, 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.