Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1850-51 Australian cricket season


 * 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 all 124 listed articles. note I'm using popups to delete, please contact me to have any erronously listed articles restored Gnangarra 12:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

1850-51 Australian cricket season

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Not a notable cricket season, article effectively empty. The matter has been discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cricket. This AfD is intended to cover all similar articles where no additional information about the season has been included. It does not cover the 1977-78 Australian cricket season, 1876-77 Australian cricket season , 1980-81 Australian cricket season , 1932-33 Australian cricket season, or the 1928-29 Australian cricket season - each of which have had content added and claims to notability. In the discussion at WikiProject Cricket, it was noted that it should be possible to write a meaningful article when there had been ''a real competition in place: domestic or international. Similarly for tours. The difficulty arises when, as in the 1877-78 Australian cricket season, there was very little domestic competition and no international interest, and is even more problematic for earlier years when there is very little record of anything much "official" happening.'' The template for the articles is at Template talk:Australian cricket seasons to make it easy for editors to create articles with a similar look and feel. I believe however that red links are better than effectively empty blue links. The prod of the 1876-77 Australian cricket season was objected to, hence the escalation to AfD. Delete Golden Wattle talk 22:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note - have only had time to tag up too 1879/80 with 1850-51 Australian cricket season so far - it is a very time consuming process and I have real life pressures.--Golden Wattle talk 23:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Apart from articles mentioned above, also excluded are 1940-41 to 1944-45 Australian cricket seasons and 1915-16 to 1917-18 Australian cricket seasons as being not empty.--Golden Wattle talk 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Also 1903-04 Australian cricket season, 1898-99 Australian cricket season, 1913-14 Australian cricket season , 1910-11 Australian cricket season , 1878-79 Australian cricket season , 1925-26 Australian cricket season , 1927-28 Australian cricket season, 1937-38 Australian cricket season are no longer entirely "empty". --Golden Wattle talk 00:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. The argument above seems to me to be incontrovertible, and the user who created these shell articles is no longer contributing, so whatever plans he had for filling these out are now not likely to take place. Golden Wattle has been commendably assiduous in seeking out and listening to the views of WikiProject Cricket members before putting this note up. Johnlp 23:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. &mdash;Moondyne 23:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. However - if someone was willing to do it, the results might be a nice addition to the year in Australia series. --Peta 00:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.  -- Bduke 01:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Though I hate to see a cricket article go, this one is speediable at the moment under CSD-A3 as simply a collection of links and a rephrasing of the title. Saying that the 1850-51 season took place in late 1850 and early 1851 does not an article make. Grutness...wha?  08:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Having those seasons as redlinks makes it look as though there was cricket played but noone has written an article yet. The articles should simply state that almost no cricket was played in that year, and why, in order to make things clear to the reader. Raffles mk 11:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - the case is indeed that "cricket played but noone has written an article yet" not that no cricket was played. For example the article 1915-16 to 1917-18 Australian cricket seasons states no cricket was played and hence I have excluded it from the debate as I agree that is meaningful information.  The other articles do not clarify if any cricket was played or not - they are actually perhaps misleading--Golden Wattle  talk 20:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Question Is there a "master article" that such articles/redlinks could be redirected to? Maybe the Intercolonial cricket in Australia article mentioned below? -- saberwyn 10:36, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, I love cricket as much as the next Aussie, but these articles are about as notable as 1422-23 Australian cricket season. Lankiveil 11:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC).
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions.   -- Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete all that don't have additional content. They could be made into proper articles, but it would be better for them to be redlinks until that happens. Stephen Turner (Talk) 11:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Might it be a reasonable compromise to merge all Aussie seasons pre, say, 1877 into one article until such time as there is enough information for separate articles? Or maybe on a by-decade basis? Grutness...wha?  23:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. See Intercolonial cricket in Australia, which is not an obvious title for non-Australians, but covers some of the ground in a single article. Johnlp 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Response to merger proposal: Intercolonial cricket is only surely part of the first class cricket story.  I think still delete empty articles not redirect to an article that only partly helps; redirects mask that the info is missing from the wikipedia just as the effectively empty articles do.  There are for some seasons perhaps some great articles waiting to be written.--Golden Wattle  talk 19:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge all 19th century articles into one article - Ozzykhan 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. That's a thought. A difficulty is that we're up against, in all of this, our former (and respected) colleague's thought patterns (which aren't necessarily entirely logical, nor necessarily to be followed now that he is gone). The "predecessor" article to Intercolonial cricket in Australia is, for instance, called History of Australian cricket to 1850, which sounds more like what User:Ozzykhan wants for the whole 19th century, and which makes sense to me. But User:Golden Wattle's point, which I agree with, is, I think, that we have a host of articles here that have no content that is worth merging into anything. Johnlp 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete only those lacking content. Most do not state anything other than "The 18XX-YY Australian cricket season took place in late 18XX and early 18YY).  It is better to have the articles redlinked so that someone will (properly) create them rather than having them as redirects.  -- Black Falcon 04:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * To the closing admin. I have compiled the list of the 124 articles that lack content (as of about 10 minutes prior to this post) and are therefore covered in this AFD.  This should make it easier to delete the appropriate ones and leave the rest (note: I have not tagged them all with subst:afd1).  -- Black Falcon 04:35, 17 March 2007 (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.