Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket


 * 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 delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There is consensus that this list runs afoul of WP:NOT and that it would become increasingly more difficult to maintain in its current format, with no consensus for an appropriate change in scope. Complex / Rational 13:46, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

List of centuries in Twenty20 International cricket

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

T20I is a full-fledged international format. Despite it being very impressive that wikipedia has every century listed on here, the number will wound up very high in the future as the scope is too wide. If we begin compiling every test and odi century - it wont be feasable. Its good to have centuries for specific tournaments - be it international or domestic. Not every international. Pharaoh496 (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 7 June 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris talk! 07:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2024 May 31.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 18:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Lists. –   20:13, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep and have a discussion about the article scope, rather than deleting. The problem.is the ICC classes every T20 match between international teams the same, and so there is a lot of pointless matches like China vs Japan listed here. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies here, so article should be kept (and I would support changing it to just matches involving test playing nations). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * @Rugbyfan22@Joseph2302 even if its every test playing nation only, it will still be a lot. Since there are more t20is being played, there will be a time in the next decade where this article has a couple hundred entries - constantly growing. This page does not exist for other formats. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem with your suggestion is another factor:
 * Lets say India and Nepal are playing in a T20I and an Indian player scores a century. That will be noted. But if in the same match a nepal player hits a century, that isnt noted. If you note that, and dont note centuries in a nepal vs namibia match, thats another conflict of exceptions.
 * There are times when full member teams and assosciate / non test teams play. what of those matches? Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:35, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * An afghan player scored a century when afghanistan didnt play tests. Now it does. What of that listing? You have a good faith proposal, but it wont work. Pharaoh496 (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Agree with Joseph2302s comments, needs a change of scope, but should be kept. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Have responded as to why that wont work, above Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:09, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Agree with the nom. This list has the potential to become unmanageable. Also, it will lack context with all T20 matches between ICC Members holding T20I status; a century made in an Australia v England match is far more notable than say Kushal Malla's 137 not out for Nepal vs Mongolia. AA (talk) 19:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:NOT. This is little more than a stat-dump and mirror of data held in several cricket stats databases; this is not our purpose. Disagree about arbitrarily narrowing scope as that introduces other issues. List of Twenty20 International records is all we actually need. wjematherplease leave a message... 09:24, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Number of T20I matches are increasing, centuries are being scored more frequently specially among the associates. In future, there's a risk of this list becoming unmanageable. List of T20 World Cup centuries is an appropriate list of this type which lists some notable and rare achievements. Robo<sup style="color:#707">Cric Let's chat  07:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete As much as it pains me to say, having spent plenty of time maintaining it, I do agree with this one. There are so many matches now that the list will become unmanageable. I don't think we should restrict to FM (Test playing) nations as that would then be an incomplete, caveated list, in which two centuries in the same match might be treated differently. What's more, I would suggest that we also looks at List of five-wicket hauls in Twenty20 International cricket and List of five-wicket hauls in women's Twenty20 International cricket for the same reasons (those are probably worse, I have stopped regularly working on those some time ago). Bs1jac (talk) 16:33, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * These are, alas too many featured lists we will be saying goodbye too :( Pharaoh496 (talk) 08:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * One solution could be to split the "Highest individual score" section of the List of Twenty20 International records into the top 5 or 10 scores by full member batsman and the top 5 or 10 scores by associate batsman. The records on that page are already dominated by lower-level associates. AA (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That doesn't apply to this discussion, but regardless a century is a century so it would be difficult to justify having a records page that only included selected entries. As someone mentioned here, if say Bangladesh play a lower-level associate such as Maldives in a qualifier tournament and both teams had a player score a century, we would only be including the one scored by the Bangladesh player (against a weaker bowling unit) and not the one scored against them. Bs1jac (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
 * This is true. One of many reasons associates outside the ODI playing associates should never have been given T20I status. But something beyond our control! AA (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. T20I hundred used to be prestigious/rare and still is but only when it is scored by a player of Test playing nation. Filtering this list with Test playing nation criteria would be WP:OR, so unfortunately we cannot maintain this list of T20I hundreds for all teams. Instead, we should encourage editors to create separate pages by team (like List of Australian Twenty20 International cricket centurions) if they are discussed by independent references as a set/group (which I think would be possible for countries like Australia, India, England, etc.) 188.29.200.166 (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete It is with a heavy heart that I vote this way as I was the editor that shepherded this through the Featured List process back in 2017. This was status of list then with the pioneers of the fledging international format before the ICC granted every Associate nation T20I status in 2019. This has become and will continue to be very bloated. Of note, if we were to restrict this list to the centuries scored in T20Is between Full Member nations only it be 67 compared to the current unrestricted number of 150. – Ianblair23 (talk) 12:04, 22 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.