Deletion of List of international cricket centuries by Justin Langer

Comment: No issues with inclusion in the main subject article, per  and 
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS||WP:SPLIT)

Comment: No need for separate article,  does not count as centuries are a small and rather exclusive part of a cricketers career. If it was his whole international career details I would have said delete, but it's not so its def a merge
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS)

Comment: to player article per  as per three most recent discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Michael Atherton, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Tom Latham, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of international cricket centuries by Dinesh Chandimal
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS)

Comment: I simply don't believe that there is no source that would compile his centuries together, but the obvious solution is to merge the list of centuries to Justin Langer. A valid |alternative to deletion that is not inappropriate. The sourcing is entirely fine for an article outside of a list. Deletion is a poor and lazy option here and editors need to find other solutions rather than just nominating the article for deletion
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Deletion policy (WP:ATD)

Comment: a list of centuries in the player's article would not violate . The prohibition in that policy is for ''excessive listings of unexplained statistics''. The proposal for a merge here is to merge one list of Langer's centuries only, which is a limited list, in which each entry is validly sourced and explained; centuries are a well-recognised achievement by a batsman in cricket so it's not indiscriminate or inappropriate to the article; and with a bit of background text the list can be easily incorporated as part of the main article. I'm actually not sure what the purpose of a redirect with no merging would be - the proposal for a merge is to maintain some of the content in a place that is potentially more appropriate for it. A merge is not inappropriate and is the best solution
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTSTATS)