Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948


 * 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 merge‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Australian cricket team in England in 1948. Liz Read! Talk! 21:38, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Continuing the assault on the Anglo-Australian cricket fanfict. Full of cruft. Duplicated infoboxes. Similar articles have been deleted before, and a large amount are currently almost deleted here (deleted on 11 June 2024). Before voting for merge, remember a lot of these articles is already on the main biography ones. Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects
 * Removed redirects

Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2024 (UTC) Procedural comment 2 - the Keith Miller 1948 article is a featured article and a merge proposal less than two months ago reached a consensus to merge to the main article which has yet to be actioned. A merge discussion regarding the Ricky Ponting 2008 article was started in March 2024 and remains open. JP (Talk) 17:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment Maybe should have taken a little more time--many of the above are redirects which should go to WP:RFD instead. --Finngall talk  21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Since its a lot of similar articles, I will wait till they are deleted (if consensus is reached) and then list them there Pharaoh496 (talk) 21:51, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge. I'll repeat what I said at the Neil Harvey (in this tour) AfD, that holds true for each article here: "We have an article about every international match played on this tour; we have an article about the series; one about the Australian team playing the series; and one about the player. Any information that doesn't already belong in those three articles is, IMHO, too much detail to be covered in an encyclopedia: it is also essentially prosified statistics that we're not a database [...] While these articles are clearly a labor of love, at some point we need to recognize that not every incident in a month-long cricket tour is worth incorporating into Wikipedia. It may be the most famous example of an Ashes series, but there's been one approximately every two years for over a century, and it's hard to argue that similar articles could not be written about every player in the more recent ones, relying on online news coverage. Not every verifiable detail is encyclopedic. I'm inclined to believe the international matches, and the tour itself, deserve articles, but it's hard to justify coverage beyond that." Aside: I suggest purging the redirects from the list now, as there will most certainly be procedural back-and-forth that will muddy the waters. Vanamonde93 (talk) 01:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I will get to it but I feel that if this discussion goes through theres also no need for the redirects. They are dead weight. Pharaoh496 (talk) 07:57, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket, England,  and Australia.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  02:23, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge all to Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - There is no doubt that the quality of writing in these articles is good and someone (or a few someones) spent a great deal of time. However, the amount of duplicated info across this series of articles is staggering. How everyone in the peer review process failed to come to the obvious conclusion that this is an unnecessary content fork truly boggles my mind. – PeeJay 10:53, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Obviously the Ricky Ponting and Mitchell Johnson articles should be merged to their respective tour articles (I missed them at the bottom of the list). – PeeJay 10:54, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * A lot of content is already in the main articles. Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't doubt it. My !vote is a call for any relevant content not already in the main articles to be moved there, and then for these articles to be deleted. – PeeJay 13:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You specified merge all and didnt mention delete. Also for the peer reviews, they were reviewed in the 2000s. Pharaoh496 (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You can't merge AND delete, see Copying within Wikipedia. Christian75 (talk) 08:46, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge all. Well written fancruft. Desertarun (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge all 5225C (talk &bull; contributions) 09:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge all, and I feel the 1948 series matches should also be examined for excessive detail/overlap and possible merging: not only is there an article for the overall tour and a separate one for the 1948 Ashes series (so, much of the detail in the tour article about the Ashes matches could be trimmed) but at present, as mentioned above, there are 5 separate articles for each of the 5 test matches. For context, there are only 11 articles in the Category:Test cricket matches, so over the entire history of test cricket, only 6 matches outside this tour have been deemed of sufficient interest for a Wikipedia article. Or to put it another way, the creators of the 1948 stuff were given far too much free rein over their favourite subject; while the 'Players with' articles are possibly a unique level of excess site-wide, certainly in terms of a fairly brief sporting event, I think the match articles are worthy of nomination too. Standards are different today, but it doesn't say much for the FA / GA process back in the 2000s when so many of these sailed through the reviews based on the high quality of the writing and formatting without the brakes being applied and saying 'wait a minute, X Y and Z player on tour nominations share a lot with X Y and Z player biography nominations and A, B and C test match nominations, which are also covered in depth by G series and H tour articles', it's not like these are totally niche and barely got any eyes on them. The main page of 2009/2010 must have had an article from this topic almost literally once a week. Some of them even got nominated for deletion at that same time, but amazingly the decision (probably involving editors who are still active in positions of respected seniority 15 years later, hopefully not with the same views on what is an appropriate level of coverage) was that they should not only be kept but promoted, basically in multiple instances of virtually the same information. Crowsus (talk) 01:24, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge all per nom and above. Cos (X + Z) 16:05, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Merge all as per nom. Also fine with just redirecting and someone can do the merge later, if that would be preferred to just leaving merge tags on these for ages. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2024 (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.