Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of women players who have scored 1,000+ runs 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 keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 22:46, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of women players who have scored 1,000+ runs in Twenty20 International cricket[edit]

[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)

1,000+ runs in Twenty20 International cricket is not a prestigious club. Fails WP:LISTN completely. Störm (talk) 17:16, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The list has a clear set of inclusion criteria of a notable achievement, with everything sourced. A bit of work and it could become a WP:FL. Note there's also a list for male cricketers. Deletion would also fail WP:BIAS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. I'm concerned by the number of nominations by this editor that ignore the Cricket WikiProject. St Anselm (talk) 19:46, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. extra999 (talk) 21:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Lugnuts. Pilean (talk) 21:55, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; valid list topic, but the title is appalling and inconsistent with the corresponding list article for men. Seems like the 1000 run threshold will need reassessing before too long, so something like List of players who have scored the most runs in Women's Twenty20 International cricket would be better (similarly for the men's article). _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:44, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was thinking about the terrible article title too when I saw this nom. Anything that ditches the "1,000+" bit has to be an improvement, as well as the reworking the "women players" to match the format of WT20I cricket. That aside, some crude maths indicate that a cricketer needs to play 50 to 60 matches to get to 1,000 career runs in WT20Is. Most of them have a career average between 21 and 31 runs too. Even ignoring the COVID impact to fixtures, most women's teams seem to play only six to nine WT20Is in a YEAR! So round that up to ten to make it easier, and that's 5 to 6 years for someone to score 1,000+ runs. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lugnuts: & @Wjemather:, Thanks for the 'KEEP'!! I am pretty awful with titles and picked the name from this which is also a pretty bad one. mitratanmoy 11:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts. CreativeNorth (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Lugnuts – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are no sources present for the match and date in which the player acheived 1000+ runs. The references for each players innings-by-innings lists are do not show this. Ajf773 (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Ajf773:, based on your suggestions, added the scorecards of each of those matches. Hope this is what you were asking for. mitratanmoy 11:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, that isn't sufficient because the content referring to the player reaching the milestone of 1000 T20 runs isn't in those scorecards. Ajf773 (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Lugnuts. mitratanmoy 11:54, 12 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.