Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe

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

List of international cricket centuries by Martin Crowe

[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) 08:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:45, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:06, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into main article. 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]

Surely there are some details worthy of merging? Even if only a very small partial merge? WilliamSpeare (talk) 19:48, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly some of the lead. I don't agree with merging the list. Ajf773 (talk) 20:12, 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) 09:03, 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...} 13:12, 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) 06:59, 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.