Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval

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. Star Mississippi 02:28, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of international cricket centuries at the Adelaide Oval (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Similar to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries at the Wankhede Stadium and other such AfDs, fails WP:NLIST. A fairly common event (80 tests, 187 centuries, that's more than 2 per test: I have trouble thinking of another sport where we would create lists of things which were this common), which explains why it isn't really the subject of significant attention (individual centuries get noted, but the vast vast majority of sources, and the only ones that really seem to care about the list subject as a whole, are statistical databases only). Note that the "further reading" book "100 Not Out: A Century of Cricket on the Adelaide Oval" is not about this topic, but about 100 years of cricket at the ground. Fram (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket and Australia. Fram (talk) 15:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - the book Fram refers to includes a discussion of centuries at the ground - it doesn't just have to be about centuries. Deus et lex (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong KEEP - In 2016 this page was a Featured Wikipedia List, appearing on the main page on 31 October 31 2016. And yet now we have a proposal to delete it because the "event" that it lists is too "common" to be of interest. This strikes me as a change of attitude by one editor rather than a considered opinion of the page's worth. I believe we need a much stronger explanation of why this page needs to be deleted. Perry Middlemiss (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Being a featured list or featured article says a lot about the quality of writing and the completeness of the article, and nothing about the notability of the subject. There have been featured articles which afterwards were deleted (and the bar for a FA is significantly higher than for a FL). The reason for deletion is that the actual list topic, the list of centuries at this ground, hasn´t been the topic of attention from reliable, independent, non-database sources. Just like in the other Afd I linked, and in the multiple Afds linked from that one. While match reports will note a century, no sources seem to care about the centuries as a group. A bit like in soccer, match reports indicate who scored, but a list of international goals at stadium x or y is of no interest, as it is a common occurrence, something which happens too often: and something which isn´t important for the ground (a list of centuries by person is much more logical, as they are highlights in their career: but the ground has no bearing on the event, it´s not as if this oval makes it harder or easier or more exceptional, it´s just the location). Basically it´s not a defining characteristic of the oval, and not a defining characteristic of the centuries. Fram (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTSTATS WP:NOTMIRROR.This is just a huge collection of matches, records and stats consolidated directly from ESPNCricinfo's statsguru. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete are we going to start listing soccer goals next? Starting to wonder if we need undeniable, non-borderline, individual notability to even qualify for good/featured article status because recently some “”good”” articles that were nothing but fancruft also ended up at AfD. Dronebogus (talk) 18:18, 7 June 2023 (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.