Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian cricket team in England in 1974


 * 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. WjBscribe 09:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Indian cricket team in England in 1974

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable stub whose content is contained entirely in the title. If there was any information in the article, it could be merged into Indian cricket team. Unless the tour itself was unusually notable, giving an article to each tour on which a notable sports team went is silly. Sarcasticidealist 20:56, 23 March 2007 (UTC) :   :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    :    : Sarcasticidealist 10:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep only if it's massively expanded, Delete otherwise - cricket tests are rare enough that plenty of series's (series'? serieses?) do have their own entries - but keeping it in this state is just silly. -  Irides centi  22:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * series Uncle G 22:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions.   -- →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a sub-stub. See also consensus at Articles for deletion/1850-51 Australian cricket season. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 22:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep those with content, but delete those that simply state that the title occurred. →Ollie (talk • contribs) 12:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless someone wants to expand it first. I don't have any objection to individual cricket tours having an article, and it should be recreated later if there is some material. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment That one sentence has 3 references!? I'm sure there are people I could find who would be willing to expand it, but until such a time, Delete.
 * I have expanded it - it is quite easy, you know. -- ALoan (Talk) 10:08, 25March 2007 (UTC)
 * Should have done this earlier, but I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:
 * In light of ALoan's edits to the 1974 page, I'd like to keep it, but all of the other should be deleted. Better redlinks than these pointless non-articles, until somebody gets to writing something proper for them. Sarcasticidealist 10:52, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the 1974 article and any others where there is "real" content. But leave the redlinks in the categories so that editors know which tours are missing and can come back to them with more content later. As ALoan says, it isn't difficult to get more content, and I've been working through some older tours – New Zealand cricket team in England in 1927 and the 1931 and 1937 equivalents, for instance. But it takes some time. Johnlp 11:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, FCOL - I expand one and you nominate another 13? Thanks a bunch, Sarcasticidealist.  (Sarcastic idealist?  Yeah, I guess so.)  It may be easy but it takes time.  Tell you what: everyone who votes delete gets to expand one of these as much as I expanded 1974.  -- ALoan (Talk) 20:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've started 1959 off... Johnlp 22:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Taking exception to my addition of 13 new articles once we were already into the debate is fair enough (and I do apologise for not including them in my initial AFD as I no doubt should have), but I take exception to your suggestion that just because the other articles *could* be expanded they need to be kept until they *are* expanded (also to the suggestion that people who want to delete content-free articles are somehow obligated to fill in the content themselves). Any of these that get expanded by you or anybody else, I'll be happy to see kept.  However, the articles I've nominated are, in their present state, better redlinked. Sarcasticidealist 06:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for rising to the challenge, Johnlp (and thanks also for the "background" section that you added to this one - I have a few others that could do with that treatment :) It is a little disheartening, to say the least, to find that the reward for doing a little work is to be asked to do 13 times as much work.  These articles will get there eventually - do we need to rush to delete them?  You are simply encouraging me to do a quick and dirty expansion job, adding a few lines of summary, rather than doing the job properly.  Who does that benefit? -- ALoan (Talk) 13:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I've probably been unclear - I'm not trying to suggest at all that the onus for filling out the other thirteen articles should be on you. You did what looks to me to be a good job with the 1974 one and, as a result, I no longer favour deleting it.  If you want to do the others right away, that's great, and then I wouldn't want them deleted, either.  If you want to do the others a couple of months from now, that's great too - I just think that, until Wikipedia has an article on the 1952 series, any links to the 1952 series should be redlinked (that's what redlinks are for - to indicate that, though a topic is sufficiently notable for an article, no such article yet exists).  If you feel you've done your part and that somebody else should do the others when they have a chance, that's also great - but the articles should be redlinked until somebody actually does them.  In answer to your question, the rush to delete them is owing to the fact that, in their present state, they're non-articles.  I'm not proposing a quick and dirty expansion job, I'm proposing that, until somebody does a proper expansion job, these "placeholder" "articles" serve no purpose.  As to why I haven't risen to your challenge as Johnlp has, it's because I don't know a damned thing about cricket.  To answer in advance the question (not necessarily asked by you, but probably by somebody) as to why a guy who knows nothing about cricket is proposing cricket-related articles for deletion, it doesn't take a cricket expert to see that these articles (except for the ones that you and Johnlp have expanded) bring nothing to Wikipedia.  In summary, I do appreciate your work, I'm not "asking" you to replicate it 13 more times, and I just think that articles that don't exist (which these ones don't) but might at some point in the future (which these ones might) should be redlinked.  My sincere apologies if I've offended. Sarcasticidealist 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep 1959 and 1974 and delete the rest. If, by the end of this AFD, additional articles are expanded beyond the routine sentence – "The Indian cricket team toured England in 19XX" – keep those as well, even if the expansion is limited in size or quality.  -- Black Falcon 02:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep all as I will be expanding them well within the two month limit suggested by the proposer above. I am the original author of all these articles but I have not been much active on the site of late.  I expect to resume my former levels of contribution around Easter and will be looking at the tour and season stubs as priorities.  Thanks yet again to ALoan and Johnlp for their help in developing these articles and for maintaining their excellent standards of work.
 * May I point out to all those non-cricket people who think cricket stubs should be deleted that the cricket project is both the largest and most developed sports project on Wikipedia. We intend to develop everything in due course, and we are steadily working our way through, but we are handicapped by sheer scale since ours is far and away the oldest professional team sport and its history is massive compared with those of other sports. Rome was not built in a day: these tour and season stubs are there to provide a foundation.  The bricks and mortar will be delivered shortly. --BlackJack | talk page 14:37, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Keep all. The proposal is short-sighted as it must be obvious to anyone that an Indian cricket tour of England is a notable sporting event. Yes, the articles need to be expanded but the cricket project is very good at that and they can be trusted to get on with it. These sort of interventions by persons who do not understand the subject achieve nothing. --GeorgeWilliams 20:50, 31 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.