Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Miller in the 1946–47 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. There was not sufficient support to redirect this page to the parent article. ✗ plicit  14:33, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season

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

Prosified statistics which violate WP:INDISCRIMINATE, per precedent in previous similar AfD. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Cricket,  and Australia.  AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article should never have been created, let alone promoted to FA. StAnselm (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete the sources in the article do not specifically mention this season in Miller's career, and the article does not mention what is particularly notable about this season of play. Under WP:MERGEWHAT I do not think this information can be incorporated into Keith Miller, as the Miller article already suffers from bloating. Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect per above. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  14:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete For the wiki-reasons already noted. And what leads to those issues is that it is far too narrow of a topic.    And creation of such creates a coatrack/green light for inclusion of far too much low level detail.  Which points to a good way to deal with it if deleted.  Merge the key info into the player article (when not already there) and leave out the rest. North8000 (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete How could the article stay for so many years and even promoted to FL?? WP:NOTSTATS. RoboCric  Let's chat  07:32, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Consensus in previous discussions is for these articles to now be deleted, as they no longer have a place in 'modern' Wikipedia. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete. Reads as an elongated summary of the 1946–47 season, which isn't appropriate for an article. StickyWicket aka AA (talk) 16:23, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete yet more Keith Miller related fandom articles.... Delete for all the reasons highlighted above, not a reasonable search term, so no point redirecting. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and let it WP:SNOW. ミラP@Miraclepine 15:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Keith Miller, not because I personally think the title is a likely search term, but because a future editor might find the contents and references useful, possibly after reducing the size of the main article. I think the article is a WP:CONTENTFORK but not a POV one. I would not have commented here except I find myself seriously out of sympathy with nearly all the above arguments. Hardly anything by way of deletion rationale has been presented above so I find hardly anything to rebut and I shall merely pass some comments. (N) Prosified statistics are not deprecated, indeed WP:INDISCRIMINATE says the problem is with "statistics that lack context or explanation": this article provides both. Also when "statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article" splitting is recommended: this article was created as a split from Keith Miller. The article is nothing like a list, not even a "prosified" one. The "precedent" in the previous AFD was a thoroughly bad precedent. (D1) The article should never have been created (or promoted): no reasons given. (D2) Sources in the article do not specifically mention this season in Miller's career: the biographies make extended mention, sources are not required to be exclusively about the topic. (D3) "As above" gives no rationale for either deletion or redirection. (D4) The rationale given is for merge, not delete. (D5) Off topic. (D6) What is more unusual these days is to have an article on a historical topic (Miller died several years before the article was created) but now we focus on current affairs. Otherwise this sort of article  has become more prevalent over time, so seemingly does still have a place.  For examples see these navboxes for links to "modern" articles about current tennis players' seasons:


 * (D7) I have sympathy with this though it isn't much of a reason for deletion. (D8) Likely search term is not the only reason to have a redirect (WP:ATD-R, WP:R). (D9) no new rationale.
 * In conclusion, I hope this doesn't sound too harsh. I think what has happened is that the contributors above are, on editorial grounds, so certain we should not have this article that they didn't realise they were not providing policy or guideline based deletion rationales. Thincat (talk) 13:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Re your D2 comment above: I agree that sources exclusively mentioning a topic are not necessary. However, I also struggle to determine what makes this player's individual season particularly notable that it passes WP:GNG; to me, the sources and the article do not demonstrate significant coverage of this player's individual season. As for your tennis example: I think a tennis player's season is more comparable to a football team's season, as tennis is mostly an individual sport and thus a year of play for a tennis player is their season. Cricket is a team sport, and as such the teams are more likely to have individual season articles, and less likely for individual players to also have individual season articles. Z1720 (talk) 13:50, 12 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd also strongly support a redirect as an ATD - part of a policy, not a guideline. The attribution and sourcing can be preserved that way and it's an obvious alternative. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete excessive detail for 1 season. Fancruft. LibStar (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2023 (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.