Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of England Test cricket centurions


 * 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)  Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk)  00:17, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

List of England Test cricket centurions

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Delete. as per WP:NOTSTATS, WP:DIRECTORY. RG | talk page *Delete per nom. WP:NOTSTATS yet again. Anyone can find this data in CricketArchive or ESPNcricinfo. If the list is to be kept, there needs to be a descriptive narrative intro and, if I were creating the list, a "notes" cell attached to each row (preferably a wide one immediately below) to make some useful comment about each century or at least each player. The intro should include some guidance for non-cricket readers too. A table of bare stats with a one-liner at the top is no good at all. Jack | talk page 15:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 November 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 13:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The arguments cited by the users above are arguments for improving the article, not for deleting it. While I recognise that the list could become unwieldy someday, assuming cricket continues to be played for the next 200 years, the possibility that this list could go on forever is the only reason I can see for deleting it. A century is a great achievement for a batsman, and I would hope that lists like this exist for all Test, ODI and T20I nations. – PeeJay 15:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now added a little extra text at the top of the article. Hopefully that should stave off deletion indefinitely. – PeeJay 15:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Do you think you could do so for all the other articles in the infobox at the bottom of the page as well please? I was going to suggest that they were bundled with this AfD to make life simpler. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a complex one given the comments above. As PeeKay2K3 suggests above, making a century for your national team is a notable feat. It's a feat that is worth noting on the individual's article page certainly. It would also be worth a section summarising this sort of content on the page of the national team (e.g. in this case, Hutton, Hammond, Cook, Peterson (perhaps) and Grace certainly) and/or the page that deals with records for that national team. My problem is whether or not it is appropriate to have a list of all those who have made one century. Is that, in itself, worth a list - afterall, the information is going to be on the individual player's page and there should be some kind of summary associated with the team as well. I'm honestly not sure whether this list, in itself, is notable and should be kept. I lean towards weak delete as I'm not convinced, yet, that a list of those who have made a century should be dealt with as a separate list. I am keen to listen to counter arguments as well though. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Changing my vote (see above where entry struck out). For some reason, I got into my head (D'oh!) that it is a list of centuries, not centurions. It would still have needed a decent lead, of course, and PeeJay has provided that so I now think we should retain it. Apologies to RG for my silly mistake. Jack | talk page 16:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Lists are a perfectly valid way of presenting information in an encyclopedia, and I don't see why this, and many of the other lists that have recently been up for deletion, can't be scrubbed up for current standards. WP is indeed NOTSTATS, but many stats are useful bits of information and a list is often a logical way of presenting them. I don't buy the argument that other sites are available: surely the aim of an encyclopedia is to be encyclopedic, ie all-inclusive. Johnlp (talk) 23:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong keep, it a list of centurions not the centuries. Ibrahim Husain Meraj (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep as a list of notable players making a notable achievement, also the article has been improved Atlantic306 (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as notable achievement. However I suggest article needs to be condensed slightly, we don't need a record of number of 100s, 200s, etc (as this violates WP:NOTSTATS). Just the first achievement for each batsman. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.

~