Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence 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 no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )


 * (Previous AfD: Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948)

Despite the high quality work put into this article which has enabled it to reach FA status, it remains a content fork of Ron Hamence and Australian cricket team in England in 1948. The article goes into undue detail on Hamence's peripheral role on the tour. The biographical article, which is a Good article, is only 1,741 words long, and could easily be expanded to include more of the relevant details from this article. Essentially, Hamence did not play any of the Test matches on the tour, and in the context of the series, was a mediocre player. His primary role on the tour seems to have been allowing other players to have a rest. Does that sort of role really need this entire article to provide details? Harrias talk 12:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because Colin McCool played even less matches on the tour than Hamence, and again did not play in the Test matches. The parent article in this case is a bit longer, Colin McCool is 2,981 words long, but again I think that the relevant information can be included in the biography, rather than taking up an article on its own. Harrias talk 12:45, 11 November 2015 (UTC)




 * Changing to Neutral. Redirect and merge some contents into the two articles named above; No opinion (yet) on McCool. I don't think this does any disservice to YellowMonkey's work, as long as the things we like make it into the other two articles. Every wikiproject can and should change their standards over time, and if WP:CRICKET feels this is overdetailed per their current standards for FA-level work, and if removing the fluff only results in content that would be better in the other two articles, then deleting and merging is a nice solution. - Dank (push to talk) 13:55, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I think for attribution purposes it's generally easier to have a "merge and redirect", not "merge and delete". WP:MAD suggests so, anyway. BencherliteTalk 14:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I made it so. - Dank (push to talk) 14:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also see my timeline comment below. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Changing to neutral. At first, the balance of information I had indicated that the wikiproject standards had changed, and I was uncomfortable standing in the way of that. As things have developed, I can't tell anymore what the current standard is, so I'm not comfortable voting either way. - Dank (push to talk) 14:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - I'm not quite sure why any of these guys need individual pages for the 1948 season: I understand they went undefeated, but that does not equal notability for each individual player for each season in a team sport. Each one is full of redundant info and even what they did after.


 * Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Bill Brown with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Arthur Morris with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
 * Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948


 * Seems extreme sports fancruft and a poor choice from the Cricket WikiProject if they endorsed this overkill. This is WP and site-wide notability guidelines apply - We don't have a similar page for every player on the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins. Publish this on the Cricket Wikia. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:17, 12 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Slightly bonkers overkill, but the case that any policies have been breached is not made. The sources are there and what is "undue detail" is not well defined in policy. Johnbod (talk) 15:56, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Here is a policy for you: WP:INDISCRIMINATE. These articles seem to suffer from Excessive listings of statistics. Guidelines about WP:REDUNDANTFORKing and WP:POVSPLITting are relevant. WP:SPINOFFing would be fine, but as I complained below, these articles are a good example for bad spinoffing. Also: WP:TECHNICAL Ceosad (talk) 17:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, none of those hit the target as far as this AFD is concerned. What about WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Johnbod (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, how about Wikipedia is not a diary in addition of the indiscriminate statistics? These articles are pretty much written variations of statistical lists or some sort of season diaries. Something like two-thirds of Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is made of jargony statistics text like this:"[Hamence's] second innings was praised for the aesthetic quality.[28] It was the first match on tour that Australia had failed to win.[12] Hamence was rested for the following match against Nottinghamshire, which was again drawn,[1][12] before returning against Hampshire. He made five as Australia were dismissed for 117 in reply to the home side's 195, the first time the tourists had conceded a first innings lead during the season.[12][29] He did not get another chance with the bat as Australia recovered to win by eight wickets.[1][29]"


 * Could you tell me why neither of these policies would apply? What does this article teach us that is not able to be contained in the articles of Ron Hamence or Australian cricket team in England in 1948? The only thing that I do not like here, is the fact how carefreely FA and GA statuses have been granted... I am NOT opposed to summaries or spinoffs of any kind, but they have to have a reason to exist! Ceosad (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If you think "[Hamence's] second innings was praised for the aesthetic quality.[28] It was the first match on tour that Australia had failed to win." is "jargony statistics text" we obviously see things very differently. "The only thing that I do not like here, is the fact how carefreely FA and GA statuses have been granted" is pure WP:IDONTLIKEIT at AFD - WP:FAR is the place for that. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep yes it is a high level of detail but the daughter/index article fulfils notability requirements with sourcing as is. All are of a fair size. And not small enough to make merging obligatory. As always, fracturing wikipedia into smaller wikis is a bad idea and irrelevant argument here anyway. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:18, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But much of this "fair size" is a direct consequence of good faith, yet short-sighted, content forking that has bloated these articles beyond reason, usefulness and readability. WP:REDUNDANTFORK WP:TNT Ceosad (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete both articles and merge only the necessary details into their respective biographies. I completely agree with the nominator's views. Even to someone with a keen interest in cricket history, Hamence was an obscure player at the international level with only three Tests under his belt and what he did on this tour doesn't deserve a separate article. The article goes into an awful lot of detail about what he did in the less important matches of the tour, and that isn't interesting even to me who normally enjoys reading about old cricket matches. The same can be said regarding the McCool article. Maybe we can further improve the Ron Hamence article in time to promote it to FA status and post it on the Main Page instead. For the record, I'm voting "delete" not because WP:IDONTLIKEIT but because it's non-notable as an independent subject. 1.39.62.143 (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 00:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep both per WP:N and WP:NOTPAPER. If there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources to get these articles to FA standard, then notability is obviously established. A vast amount has been written about the 1948 "Invincibles" Australian team and players of this era more generally, so I don't see what the problem is. The complaint here seems to be that we shouldn't have a dedicated high quality article on these topics, and instead merge shorter versions of the content into other articles, which doesn't seem sensible to me - surely it's a good thing to have these fine articles? Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * FA and GA status is irrelevant to notability and apparently even existence. Don't forget Bicholim Conflict - Wikipedia's GA about the battle that never took place. —Мандичка YO 😜 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's an absurd comparison, and I'd suggest that you strike it. The Bicholim Conflict article was pure vandalism with all references being faked, and these articles were developed in good faith using legit sources. Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: Timeline: This article was scheduled as a TFA for Nov 25. The FAC nominator has been gone for over 5 years, so as is usual in such cases, I notified the wikiproject instead, at WT:CRICKET. Three of the people who saw that (I'm assuming) showed up at WT:TFA in this thread to talk about their reservations about this article showing up on the Main Page. This deletion request is one proposed method of dealing with their request. I'm not wedded to any particular approach to the problem. - Dank (push to talk) 01:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. The fact that several of these articles specify in their lead that the player in question was "not instrumental" in the team's successful tour, and yet there is still the amount of well-cited information that there is, speaks to me of how well-covered the topic must be in relevant sources. G RAPPLE   X  08:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Have you never heard of fluff? —Мандичка YO 😜 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * But how in-depth are these well-cited references compared to average sports journalism coverage? Vast majority of the inline citations are some obscure sites with cricket statistics. It feels like a mush of jargon and statistics tries to hide the fact how hollow the coverage actually is. These articles have alarmingly low amount of book sources alone, if we look at other featured articles. WP:INDEPTH Without an adequate depth of coverage both neutrality and verifiability are questionable. WP:VERIFY WP:NPOV Ceosad (talk) 18:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * well, that is the sort of thing that cricket enthusiasts love and is the meat of any cricket article, and obviously of little interest to others. Many (if not most) esoteric articles could be classified thus. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are correct, but as these are biographical articles, we should be wary of the issues I raised. Even if these players have died a long time ago. As StAnselm points out, Hamence's importance for the team is questionable. Hamence fails WP:ANYBIO but easily satisfies other requirements such as WP:NCRICKET. I find it impossible to justify this article as [Hamence has not] made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field. This is one of the main reasons why I have so vocally accused this of being a [POV] fork. Ceosad (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep both - the 1948 Australian team has been widely covered over the years and as a result the subjects of these articles all seem to easily meet the requirements of WP:SIGCOV to pass the General Notability Guideline as I understand it. Anotherclown (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. —Мандичка YO 😜 17:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * we'd use that meme if it didn't have sourcing...which it does, so not relevant. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both (or all of them) due to issues raised by 1.39.62.143 and the nominator. Furthermore, as these various forks are excessively verbose and detailed, and a serious case of forking, I am skeptical on their continuing viability as articles. They will need to be heavily pruned to be useful at all. At their current state, I will completely agree with Wikimandia. In fact, these articles with excessive details serve the completely opposite effect compared to the "Introduction to..." articles, as they drown any useful information withing a mush of meaningless trivia. Something must have gone completely bonkers in the Cricket WikiProject's quality control as this Introduction to general relativity is easier to read than these featured monstrosities. WP:TECHNICAL Ceosad (talk) 16:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * i.e. you don't like it. We get that. So go find something else to read/write about. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * See my comments above for you and Johnbod. Ceosad (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. Firstly, "the 1948 Australian team has been widely covered" (Anotherclown) - but that doesn't mean this particular aspect of it has received significant coverage. Indeed, it's almost all routine coverage, such as scoreboards. The only really significant thing we can say about the subject is, as the article so eloquently puts it, "Hamence was not instrumental in the team's success." Secondly, a number of the "keep" arguments are based on FA status - but that is putting the cart before the horse. Indeed, something has gone seriously wrong with the whole FA process if an article like this is regarded as "the best of the best" that Wikipedia can offer - in any case, we can't assume that just because it's FA, the references provide the significant coverage needed to demonstrate notability. Thirdly, I think it is fair to compare the scope with that of other WP articles. The comparison to "every player in the undefeated 1972 Miami Dolphins side is an apt one. The tour is certainly notable - the presence of individual players is not. Or to take another analogy, consider actors appearing in films. As I've argued elsewhere, Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 would be like Brad Pitt in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. Are there lots of sources discussing Pitt's performance? Yes. It is Pitt's most important work? Probably not. But Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is in a different order together. That would be more like Jennifer Morrison in Mr. & Mrs. Smith. And even then, I'm sure we would find more reliable sources discussing Jennifer Morrison's role than we have discussing Hamence's role. Finally, it's not just about sourcing - we could probably find enough sources to write an article on the food that the players ate during the tour. But I hope we all agree that this doesn't make it a notable topic for an encyclopedia. StAnselm (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that it is FA means that it has ample sourcing, which would usually be enough to satisfy notability criteria. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:34, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't mean that at all. StAnselm (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - per previous keep comments. This discussion above clearly expounds the two sides, and the banter between messages simply amplifies the attitude, almost good as watching the current game in Perth. JarrahTree 00:48, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - it pains me deeply to support the deletion of an FA, but there has to be a limit to the kind of pages we have, and these seem to me well over the line. I think StAnselm's argument above is particularly good. Just because an FA can be written about a topic doesn't mean it should. Frickeg (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete both. We need to go back to basics here, and not let our judgments be clouded by the article's status. The topic of this article is "Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" – not anything else. Does this topic meet the general notability guideline? The first criterion for an article to meet the GNG is significant coverage; I can't see any way in which this article meets that criterion. There have been no articles written about Ron Hamence's role in the tour, let alone a book (or even a chapter of a book). Notability is not inherited, from either the main tour or Hamence himself. The current standards at WikiProject Cricket would not allow these types of articles to be written, and I see no reason why we should grandfather existing articles in.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  07:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete I think these articles shouldn't really be an FA article and in the way thats the way it should stay. Because I am surprised that it has lasted so long. Matt294069 is coming 01:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep. I had qualms about these articles when they were created, but they do form part of a 42-article Featured Topic which is, aside from two FTs on warships, the single largest such collection across WP. On their own, I wouldn't find anything much to defend in the two nominated, nor in a couple of others; but as part of an FT which is "complete" and unlikely ever to be added to, I think there is an admittedly weak case for retention. Johnlp (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep – I was one of the supporters back when the Hamence article was at FAC and wasn't concerned back then that the article failed notability guidelines. If I thought it wasn't notable enough to exist, I wouldn't have supported it. My opinion really hasn't changed. I see no reason why these players shouldn't have such spin-off articles if the sources exist to support bringing such articles to a high level. The way I read WP:INDISCRIMINATE, the policy is referring to actual lists of statistics (or text that is effectively all-list), not a narrative that happens to be stat-heavy such as the articles in questions. I tried to make a case mentally for deletion since this debate is something reasonable editors can disagree about, but I just don't see it. Some of the arguments in favor of deleting the pair of articles are questionable to me. For one, I see multiple statements that FA doesn't take into account notability, which simply isn't true. From WP:WIAFA: articles must meet the "policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles" before the FA criteria are even considered. As I said, we're implying that the article is notable enough to exist when one of us reviewers supports an article. (While I'm here, I don't appreciate the insinuation that myself and other reviewers are "careless", as most of us take reviewing very seriously, but that's not the main issue at hand). This doesn't mean that mistakes can't be made or that consensus can't change, but it does reflect the beliefs of numerous editors at a point in time; I'd assume GA doesn't back the promotion of non-notable articles either. Another editor commented how few books were referenced in the articles as proof of a lack of in-depth coverage; I count nine for Hamence and eight for McCool, which are higher totals than many (most?) FAs. Without being able to access the books and judge their content, I'm going to assume good faith that some in-depth coverage of the players' tour experiences exists unless I see some evidence otherwise (not mere opinion on what is in the books). There are circumstances in which I would support an FA or GA being deleted, but I would need to see some strong evidence that the article in question is non-notable or worse, like the Bicholim hoax above. I'm not convinced by the arguments here. Just one editor's opinion. Giants2008  ( Talk ) 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Cas Liber's comments. Reasonable courage provided from reliable sources as well. Seems like those who want to delete this have inactionable reasons such as "I think these articles shouldn't really be an FA article and in the way thats the way it should stay." or just don't like it. That has nothing to do with notability. Burklemore1 (talk) 04:53, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep All. This nomination completely misses the essential point that the "on tour" articles were created as part of a Featured topics drive about the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. It is essential for the purposes of the featured topic to examine each of the participants individually. Take these out and you might as well scrap the featured topic too. The argument about Hamence's statistics is unfounded: there is no table of stats in the article apart from a standard brief summary in the infobox. The article discusses Hamence's performances by matches played and obviously it mentions how many runs he scored each time. How could it not do? This all comes down WP:IDONTLIKEIT per Johnbod above. Jack | talk page 08:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong delete all articles. Ron Hamence is notable, Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is notable, but Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is not notable on its own. If what individual players of a cricket squad did on cricket tours is notable, just imagine the number of such articles that can be created. We may end up having hundreds of "Sachin Tendulkar with the Indian cricket team in XYZ in ABC" articles. And a minimum of 30 articles can be created every time a cricket series takes place between two international teams (since there are at least 15 member on each squad). Having exceptions like "Ian Botham with the English cricket team against Australia in 1981" or, say, "Mitchell Johnson with the Australian cricket team against England in 2013-14" is alright and can serve readers with useful and interesting information. But this case of Ron Hamence crosses the line (and a line needs to be drawn). Fenopy (talk) 09:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTPAPER --Dweller (talk) 10:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't get your point. WP:NOT has several lines supporting this deletion, such as:
 * "there is no practical limit to the number of topics Wikipedia can cover or the total amount of content. However, there is an important distinction between what can be done, and what should be done"
 * Under 'Wikipedia is not a directory' section, it says, Wikipedia articles are not: "Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "people from ethnic / cultural / religious group X employed by organization Y" or "restaurants specializing in food type X in city Y". Cross-categories like these are not considered sufficient basis to create an article, unless the intersection of those categories is in some way a culturally significant phenomenon."
 * In another section it says, Wikipedia articles should not read like: "Case studies. Many topics are based on the relationship of factor X to factor Y, resulting in one or more full articles. For example, this could refer to situation X in location Y, or version X of item Y. This is perfectly acceptable when the two variables put together represent some culturally significant phenomenon or some otherwise notable interest."
 * Under 'Wikipedia is not a newspaper' it says, Ensure that Wikipedia articles are not: "A diary. Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary." -- Fenopy (talk) 10:51, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per Casliber. I also agree with much of what BlackJack ("Jack") wrote, above. --Dweller (talk) 10:27, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Most of those arguing for the articles to be kept have done so based on the article's status, with no attempts so far to make an argument for the notability of the subject matter. As I noted above, I really don't see how the topics of these articles meet the general notability guideline. Is there anyone willing to argue that they do?  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  10:49, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A number of people have argued with that already. --Dweller (talk) 10:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * People have stated that the subject is notable, but no one has actually provided evidence or made an argument.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  11:07, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To clarify what I mean further, none of the sources listed in References section (which should really be called "Bibliography") deal with Ron Hamence's role in the tour, only with the tour overall. The only other sources used are Cricinfo and CricketArchive, which cover all cricket tours and thus count as routine coverage.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  11:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, there isn't a biography of Ron Hamence but the Perry book about the "Invincibles" does go into some detail about each squad member and YM has drawn on this for information specific to Hamence. Much of the referencing, of necessity, relates to the tour in general which is the background to this article. Same comments apply re most of the other players as only a few had biographies written. Let me put it this way. If Hamence's 1948 experience was confined to his biographical article, would you remove it from there because it lacks notability? We are moving up a level with this because we are dealing not only with articles about the 1948 tour but with a featured topic on the subject. Jack | talk page 15:12, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Notability does not apply to content within articles, so of course Hamence's experiences on the tour could be incorporated into the main article. I think the fact that no one has written biographies for many of the players is a good argument as to why Wikipedia shouldn't have separate articles devoted to a few months of their lives.  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  15:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * While I've yet to work out what I think should happen here, and may just sit on the fence, the argument that it should be kept because it is a featured topic is to put the cart before the horse. If these two articles are merged or deleted, then Hamence and McCool will still be covered in the topic by (a) their main biographical articles and (b) the main article about the tour itself.  After all, Keith Johnson (the tour manager) is included in the featured topic on the basis of a few paragraphs in his article about the tour without having a separate article about his 1948 role, and the same would no doubt happen for Hamence and McCool if their articles did not survive.  Featured topics are based on articles that pass Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and cannot be used as trump cards if it is determined that an article would not otherwise pass these criteria. BencherliteTalk 15:31, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems clear that, in accordance with Summary style, this article - like the related articles for each other player on the team - was deliberately created outside Australian cricket team in England in 1948 to stop that article from getting too long (see comments at Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948; compare also Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010). This is a technique that is used elsewhere: compare, for example, Gunpowder Plot in popular culture (is that a notable topic in its own right?  where are the books dedicated to it?).  Perhaps some of the details could be merged into Ron Hamence (or Colin McCool) or Australian cricket team in England in 1948, but merging all of it in either place would be disproportionate and give undue attention to this player or episode.  It is not an indiscriminate list of statistics or trivia.  It is a treatment in prose of the player's actions on the tour.  This is just the sort of information that you might find in an in-depth work on the player's life, or of the tour.  In particular, this article is not an equivalent to Introduction to general relativity: it does not stand as an "introduction to" a technical subject explictly aimed at the non-expert, but as an article on a narrow specialist topic.  That said, it should still be readable to the non-specialist.  Perhaps the English needs finessing to make it more approachable for the non-specialist - do go ahead and edit it to make it better - but that is not a reason to delete.  The sourcing is fine too: of course this particular topic is discussed in books and articles about the men's lives and about the tour. Put it this way: what encyclopedic object is advanced by deleting inoffensive and factual articles of this nature? Ferma (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per summary style (thanks, notpaper, etc. While this article is certainly borderline, I think the sourcing is strong enough to hold up on its own. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:55, 18 November 2015 (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.