Talk:Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Orphaned references in Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "o": From Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948:  From Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948:  From Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948:  

Reference named "Allen 1999": From Doug Ring:  From Ron Hamence: Allen, pp. 76–79. 

Reference named "av": From Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: </li> <li>From Ron Hamence: First-class Batting and Fielding in Each Season by Ron Hamence from Cricket Archive retrieved 20 May 2008</li> </ul>

Reference named "p176":<ul> <li>From Bill Brown (cricketer): Perry (2000), p. 176.</li> <li>From Keith Miller: Perry, p. 176.</li> </ul>

Reference named "sched":<ul> <li>From Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: </li> <li>From Bill Brown (cricketer): </li> </ul>

Reference named "Pollard":<ul> <li>From Doug Ring: </li> <li>From Ian Johnson (cricketer): Pollard (1988), pp. 603–604.</li> <li>From Ron Hamence: Pollard, p. 506.</li> <li>From Keith Miller: </li> <li>From Colin McCool: </li> <li>From Sam Loxton: </li> </ul>

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

One reference
current ref 28 starts with "Barnes, p.180" but the book is not listed underneath.--GDibyendu (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Doen  YellowMonkey  ( cricket calendar poll! ) 05:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Notability
The notability of this article is dubious - it really shouldn't be a featured article. Hamence didn't even play a test. Most of the references are passing mentions and routine coverage. What we have here of substance could be merged to Australian cricket team in England in 1948. StAnselm (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The AfD discussion has been closed as no consensus. I think that means the notability tag should stay; perhaps there could be a merge discussion. But I think the next step might be a FA review, since the FA status seemed to be important in the deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, the FA criteria don't deal with things like notability - from what I can tell, FA reviews seem to focus on style. StAnselm (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Given the AfD result, I've removed the tag. I'd note that notability is determined by the availability of reliable sources which cover the topic, and not how important or otherwise individual editors consider it (I don't think that this is an important topic, but the references are clearly there). Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No - there is obviously no consensus at this point whether the subject is notable - that is, whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. The tour is obviously notable, but not this player's role in it. StAnselm (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just re-removed the tag. If there had been a consensus that the topic wasn't notable, the article would have been deleted. Instead, there was judged to be no consensus, and even a brief look at the AfD makes it clear that the keep votes outnumbered the deletes. I don't think it's a good idea to maintain this kind of tag in these circumstances: it's basically your view versus that of the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

deletion

 * You mean Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead? G RAPPLE   X  11:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You should probably explain why the article is "ridiculous drivel" and "nonsensical bullshit." Brutannica (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The "threshold" is determined by coverage in reliable sources, and if that's satisfied, then we should welcome rather than spurn "hundreds of millions of articles". G RAPPLE   X  00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * See WP:N. I'd also note that the sources were sufficient to develop the article to a state in which it was judged to be of Wikipedia's highest level of quality. Wikipedia is full of articles on not terribly important topics, which is generally a good thing given that its very broad coverage is one of the factors which makes Wikipedia a valuable resource. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Per the Five Pillars, Wikipedia incorporates features of "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". There's nothing "demeaning" about this article... hyperbole will get you nowhere. –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Given that Wikipedia has articles like Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, Icelandic Phallological Museum, Human–animal breastfeeding and about a zillion articles on porn actors, this is hardly dragging standards down. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record, before the article appeared on the main page, I nominated for deletion, and the discussion is here. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 11:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)