Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton


 * 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 redirect to Michael Atherton. Anyone who wishes to rescue the content from behind the redirect, and merge into the main article, is welcome to do so at their convenience. Daniel (talk) 03:07, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:NLIST as it says, "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". Completely sourced with cricinfo. Störm  (talk)  22:10, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  23:08, 8 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge, this and other similar lists are allowed as per WP:SPLIT. There are 72 articles in Category:Lists of international cricket centuries by player, so if this one is problematic, then there should be a discussion about the whole set. If the convention that he doesn't have enough to have a separate article is not met then this should be merged back to Michael Atherton. If people want to argue that this is WP:NOTSTATS then none of the List of centuries... should exist, as they are created as splits from the main article. Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:24, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Some are WP:NOTSTATS, not all. List for which there are sources that discuss the player's centuries in detail, for that, we can create a separate list per WP:NLIST. We don't need any arbitrary number, like 25, to create such lists. Störm   (talk)  13:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * your point makes sense but surely that would mean articles like this, which is a featured list by the way, would be nominated for deletion. Would you nominate an article like that or this for AFD as it fails WP:NLIST? CreativeNorth (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I was talking specifically about the addition of this list back into the parent page. I agree with the recent AfDs that held that if there was no need for a split, then the content should be merged. Spike &#39;em (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge as per Spike'em. CreativeNorth (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * To expand the quote from the referenced WP:NLIST :One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources and There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. There is clearly no consensus that the only notability criteria for a standalone list is that is has been discussed as a group. There is also the guidance in WP:NOTSTATS that : Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. Spike &#39;em (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * There are only two criteria, either list topic should have coverage as a group in multiple WP:RS or we create list navigational purpose where we only link articles. WP:NOTSTATS is a general guideline that applies to all articles with statistics. It is not limited to lists and in your quoted text it even doesn't mention that it applies to the list. Störm   (talk)  11:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll quote again: There is no present consensus for how to assess ... what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists. This does not match your claim of it having to meet 1 of 2 criteria. NOTSTATS says to split if it makes an article difficult to read. I'm open to discussion as to whether this is the case for these lists, but I hold that the lists should be kept as either a table on the parent article or as a stand-alone list. Spike &#39;em (talk) 13:13, 11 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge. Following earlier AFDs here and here, there is nothing to warrant a separate article, per WP:SPLIT. Per nom, these articles do not stand on their own. wjematherplease leave a message... 12:15, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * But these earlier AFDs Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Mushfiqur Rahim or Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Upul Tharanga or Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Shakib Al Hasan resulted in being deleted. There is nothing to warrant a separate article, NOR is there any justifiable reason why such indiscriminate information needs to appear on the players' BLP articles. Ajf773 (talk) 09:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per other outcomes of 'List of international cricket centuries..' articles. WP:NOTSTATS. Ajf773 (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge to Michael Atherton. Azuredivay (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per other similar lists. Just indiscriminate stats, available on stats sites elsewhere. Nigej (talk) 16:17, 14 January 2021 (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.