Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton 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   keep. no consensus for deletion, but if there is any need for merging you can discuss probably at the WikiProject Cricket. Since no consensus for deletion and consensus for keeping, I close the discussion JForget  00:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I came across this series of articles as a result of a featured article candidate for one of these. The articles in question are all personnel associated with the 1948 Australian cricket team in England, with an additional two articles in later tours. They are:
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)
 * (featured article)

This list comprises the entire cast of players on the team (see Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948), with the exception of the manager.

I'm very surprised these articles exist. They are semi-biographical in nature. All start off with an infobox that starts as a clone to their biographical articles. I can't help but think of the precedent being set here. Are we to have articles articles for every season of major NFL players like Tom Brady such as Tom Brady with the New England Patriots in 2005? How about Mike Lowell with the Boston Red Sox in 2007? Or if you want higher qualifications Mike Lowell in the 2007 World Series (he was MVP that year)?

I can understand how one player's acquirement by a team might play a very significant role in that team's immediate future, and that might be the subject of extensive secondary source media. But including articles on every single player that were on the team? This is excessive. WP:NOTDIR notes that Wikipedia is not "a complete exposition of all possible details" The level of detail here is excruciating and absolutely astonishing.

I fully recognize that an intense amount of work went into the creation of these articles. Several of them have attained featured article status. However, I feel the articles are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. The work done here for each player's role in the team for that year is in violation of WP:SYNTHESIS and each and every single player's role on the 1948 team is certainly not notable enough to warrant a separate article on their performance, thus violating Notability concerns as well.

There's two other articles in this general group as well, though they apply to teams other than the 1948 team:

I have tagged these articles in this AfD as well.

My personal opinion is notable material from these articles should be merged where appropriate into Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and the various test match pages (such as First Test, 1948 Ashes series), and these articles either deleted or turned into redirects to Australian cricket team in England in 1948. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm not going to register an official vote yet, but I'd like to point out that while these may not be found in the traditional encyclopedia, they seem to fit the description of "general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (WP:5P). – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 17:42, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The information itself, if notable, is certainly worthy (but very far from all of it). We don't have an article titled Tom Brady with the New England Patriots in 2005 for example. Instead, we have Tom_Brady. We already have things like Ernie_Toshack, which is appropriate. Breaking out every season/tour into individual articles? No. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Apples and oranges. The Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is both famous and historically significant. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 20:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What, and Super Bowl XXXVI isn't? 2004 World Series isn't? How about then Michael Jordan in the 1991 NBA Finals? Just because Cricket isn't NFL, NBA or MLB doesn't make these incomparable cases. How can we justify such incredible detailed articles on every single player on the 1948 team? Much less the apparent continuation of the pattern for 1953 and 1956? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that some of these articles are laden with excessive detail, but that's not by any means a reason to delete them. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 21:34, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well if your articles get overgrown go ahead and create subarticles instead of killing information  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then why not create similar articles for every player in the NBA, MLB, NFL, CFL, MLS, NHL, IHL (is this enough yet?) KHL, ALIH, ABA, and on and on and on and on...for every season of their career? --Hammersoft (talk) 21:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If high quality articles can be created, I don't see why not. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 22:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, keep in mind that we aren't creating an article for every season for every player in every sport. These are 15 articles on the most important season for the most important players for one sport. Entire books have been published on this one team. NW ( Talk ) 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Even so, the right comparison to Tom Brady with the New England Patriots in 2005 would be Ricky Ponting in the 2005 Sheffield Shield or Rahul Dravid in the 2002 Ranji Trophy and the like. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * NW, please note that we already have two articles in the same style outside of the 1948 series. There's no reason to believe this will stop with the 1948 team only. There's no line in the sand here. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those Keith Miller articles are there because otherwise Miller would be about 140kb of prose.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge the content into greatly shortened sections of the articles on the players (e.g. Sam Loxton) and the matches played (e.g. First Test, 1948 Ashes series). I too was very surprised that these articles existed, but when I first saw them several were in the process of becoming featured, so I just assumed that most people disagreed with me.  I personally feel that these articles are full of vastly excessive detail on the course of each match.  I really think the overall impact of the each players performance is all that is important from these articles, and that it could be summed up in a couple paragraphs for each person. Calathan (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I concur with your assessment. The first of these that I saw was Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, it being a featured article candidate. I assumed that Sam Loxton had to have been somebody critically important to that tour, and that the media at the time had some kind of feeding frenzy over his existence on the team, to justify the article. Then I found out that every single player on the team has a similar article. I then looked for any traces of prior AfDs and didn't find any. I also note that WikiProject Cricket lists almost all of these as "low importance". --Hammersoft (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The parent articles of the players are all already FA/GA except 2/15, and the info can't be re-added without violating undue weight, or killing all the information, or expanding every section by a factor of about four and getting 120+ kb prose articles.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as legitimate, well sourced spin out articles. This AfD is provocative, unnecessary and will serve only to further wikidramas. "I also note that WikiProject Cricket lists almost all of these as 'low importance'." Are you serious!! 90% of the project's articles are "low importance" as the default standard. The argument seems to be "I don't find it interesting, therefore it should be deleted". If the nominator wants to cite a policy reason for deletion I am all ears. This should be speedy closed and the nominator given a good slap with a trout. -- Mattinbgn\talk 22:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very Strong Keep - Why delete the spin out articles and merge the info into the main article? As the information is notable and important in cricket circles along with many being FA's. In any case the main article already has brief info on the tour, which is expanded in the spin out articles. Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 22:50, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - While I sympathise with the sentiment of this AfD, I personally think that this could be seen as a bit of a grey area. In many ways, these articles contain far more detail than is actually necessary for an encyclopaedia, but then there's the argument that if such high-quality articles can be created and well-sourced, then why shouldn't they be? Personally, I think these articles should be merged into the appropriate parent articles, but I won't be too disappointed if they remain. – PeeJay 22:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - As Juliancolton said earlier, while these may not be found in a traditional encyclopedia, they most certainly have the potential to be in "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers" (WP:5P). WP:NOTPAPER most certainly applies here. These are wonderfully written articles. Why delete them? NW ( Talk ) 23:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep One of the most significant teams (and notable) in one of the most significant (and notable) series in cricketing history. Fits well within the five pillars of Wikipedia. - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 23:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 23:24, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 23:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  -- - SpacemanSpiff Calvin&#8225;Hobbes 23:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all WP:N is met and the fact that several of these articles are FAs and most of the others potential FAs shows that they're very suitable topics for Wikipedia articles (their creator, User:YellowMonkey is trying to develop a featured topic on the 1948 'Invincibles' cricket team). I think that this nomination should also be closed on procedural grounds; it's ridiculous to nominate multiple FAs for deletion as part of a group nomination. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Being a featured article doesn't necessarily mean that something is an appropriate article to keep in the encylopedia. Otherwise, Bulbasaur, Torchic, and Goomba would still have articles.  Also, while this may not have been the most appropriate place for this discussion given that I think the nominator wanted the articles merged somewhere rather than outright deleted, now that the discussion has been started here I don't think there is any reason to close it and start it up again somewhere else.  I also don't think having a group nomination for the articles is any worse than having them nominated separatly.  I don't think anyone is going to argue that some of the articles should go and some should stay. Calathan (talk) 00:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While FAs don't get a free pass in AfDs, the fact that there are enough references to develop these articles to FA status counts for rather a lot in my view. While I'm not a cricket expert, the availability of coverage of members of this team does differ (eg, I suspect that as much has been written on Bradman's captaincy during this tour as on all the other members of the team's contributions put together), so its nonsensical to lump them all together like this. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * note the Bulbasaur etc comparison but those articles were merged/moved because of the use of Primary Sources and still exist at WikiProject Pokémon/Bulbasaur(quasy userspace) awaiting secondary sourcing. Gnangarra 05:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Those Pokemon articles didn't have any textbook sources and hardly any indept ones (if any).  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - Nick-D put it well; I've nothing to add to his rationale. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:55, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge for all of them. Merge the biographical information into the corresponding biography, and the info about the matches into the article about the match (which by reading through some of them, it seems like that part is already done). Sure it's notable, but this can be (and is) presented in a way better way. This is a horrible predicent as this could turn into a "(person) in the (season)" with millions of articles possible. Tavix | Talk  23:56, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment To further clarify my opinion, I would liken these articles to having something like Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, with a paragraph or two for each chapter in the book describing what Ron did in that chapter. Harry Potter is one of the most successful series of novels in history, and Ron is one of the main characters of the series.  His actions in the book (along with those of several other major characters) are an essential aspect of the plot.  Lots of people have written about Harry Potter books, and I am sure there would be plenty of reliable sources discussing Ron's actions in the book.  However, the reasons why the book is important and how his actions were an essential part of the plot can easily be discussed within the articles Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows and Ron Weasley.  Only someone who is already a huge fan of Harry Potter would care what Ron was doing in each and every chapter.  To someone wanting to learn about Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, the significance of the book (that it sold at a record pace, etc.), and the significance of Ron Weasley to that book (that he destroyed a horcrux), are both evident without needing an article giving the details of everthing he did in the book.  Similarly, the importance of the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is evident from that article, and the fact that Sam Loxton is an important cricketer, as well as his contributions to the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 are evident from the Sam Loxton article.  No one who isn't a huge cricket fan would care about all the details like what the score was at various points in the matches and what exactly Sam Loxton did on this day or that day.  Having that content does nothing to further someone's understanding of why the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 or Sam Loxton are important.  The only real difference between this and something like Ron Weasley in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows is that people would delete the Harry Potter article based on guidlines like WP:NOT, while the similar overly-detailed cricket article would be kept because it is not about fiction. Calathan (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strongest possible merge per User:Tavix. The majority of the content in these articles duplicates the standard biographical articles for the player concerned and the article about the team concerned. Regardless of how much paper the articles are or are not using, there is no reason for duplicating the information. Yes, the team is supremely notable, that's why we have an article about the team. Cricket however is a team game, and like all team games the performance of the team is the result of the combination of the performances of all the team members. I'm astounded that some of these reached featured article status without someone sitting up and asking what the point of duplicating the team and player articles was. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 *  Merge, As per User:Tavix, and also per Calathan's statement. No need of separate articles, either they should be added to their bios, or else to the tour itself. These seems to be more of what is know as "Teshrie" in Urdu, which usually  done of Poems. Or else we will articles like Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20. We already have some info about in 2009 ICC World Twenty20 DO we need such an article ? -- yousaf465   04:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think some people are misunderstanding the circumstances. These are not random players in a random team in a random year; else I would agree. These are as I understand it the most notable players of the most notable team of the most notable year in cricket. And I say this as someone who doesn't know the first thing about cricket. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 04:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly. This team has received a vast amount of coverage and there are easily enough references to support individual articles on the team members. Given Wikipedia's problems, deleting very high-quality articles on notable topics because they're too detailed seems rather perverse. Nick-D (talk) 04:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Some editors become so preoccupied with rules and regulations they don't stop and use any commonsense what so ever. Yousuf, Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20 is a ridiculous comparison because Shahid Afridi probably only played 20 hours of cricket for the whole World Twenty20. On the Invincibles tour, there was over 30 first-class matches alone. Also this was a Test tour not some random bash and crash Twenty20 game. Hundreds of hours of cricket was played over a period of a few months. Also the article has 11,068 words. Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20 would be lucky to have 200 words. Come on people, use some common sense. It appears that the topic may not interest the particular article so they couldn't care less.  Aaroncrick   ( talk ) 05:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes that is my point, at least I don't want to write an article titled Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20, nor about Zaheer Abbas on XYZ tour see Zaheer Abbas. Firstly it will violate some wiki policies and second it will start a trend, which everyone would like to follow. Remember wikipedia is not a journal.-- yousaf465  07:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ask any historian and they will say Tests trumps any ODI/T20 World Cup any day, and this is the most celebrated in Australian history, even though some people think other teams were better.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't comparing T20 to Test, both have their own place. A good test is still as exciting as a nail bitting world cup final, recently concluded Ashes is a prime example. But my point is do we need to discuss that how Zaheer Abbas performed during a certain tour of England and write a a whole article on it. ?-- yousaf465  06:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody thinks of doing tour articles unless the main one gets big already, or because of undue weight  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 06:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you admit you don't know cricket but your understanding that this is the "most notable players of the most notable team of the most notable year in cricket" is still inaccurate enough to be picked up on. There's been no selection of notable players (every squad member has an article), I don't see why Australia are more notable than any other Test team and 1948 is far from the most notable year in cricket. 'All members of the most notable touring cricket team' is an accurate description. --Jpeeling (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you referring to User:Juliancolton comments.-- yousaf465  13:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I would have thought the indenting and direct quoting would establish that but evidently not. --Jpeeling (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I think those arguing for a merge have the cart before the horse. Information is what is important here; titles are window dressing. You don't decide on a title then figure out what information is worth including under it. You figure out what information is available on a topic, and then decide what title(s) it should be organised under. Given the sheer quantity of information that has been sourced and collated in this area, I can see no better way to organise it than under the present series of titles. Proponents of a merge like the idea of having all this under a single title, which is fine, except that they are willing to throw away most of the information in order to achieve that. That is not acceptable. Hesperian 05:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * (I was typing this up as a reply to Nick-D, but thought it fit better here.) The fact that there is a lot of information available is meaningless, as much of it is just the scores at various points and who was batting at what point. That kind of information can be found for almost any major sporting event.  The sort of content in the sections labeled "First Test", "Second Test", would be available for any high-level game of any major sport.  I don't think that sort of detailed summary of the progression of the games is in any way useful.  None of it adds in any way to the understanding of why this team was great.  Rather, it hinders that understanding by overwhelming the articles and distracting the reader from the real meat of the articles - the "role" sections at the bottom that summarizes how the player's contributions helped the team.  Just because a lot of content can be added to an article doesn't mean that content makes the article better.  A clear, concise article that addresses the important aspects of the subject is much more desireable than a long, overly detailed one.  In my opinion, it is only because of excess, unhelpful content that these articles are long enough to be split from the main articles on the people in question, and that removing that excess material and merging the remainder back into the parent articles will improve Wikipedia's coverage of this subject, not worsen it. Calathan (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am somewhat sympathetic to this line of reasoning. As I said a gazillion years ago when a notability policy was first being discussed, it is possible to write a fully cited and entirely NPOV article on Stoddy, one of the nine camels that accompanied David Carnegie on his epic journey from Coolgardie to Halls Creek—where he went, what load he was carrying, how much water he drank, the time he ate poison and almost died—it's all there in Carnegie's published journal.... Nonetheless I think these cricket articles are all coherent and notable topics. Hesperian 06:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If someone doesn't want to read the added detail of the tour, they should just read the appropriate section in the players main articles. It's really not rocket science.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 05:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I would agree with you except that I feel this sets a double standard by allowing non-fiction articles to have spin-off articles that are only of interest to dedicated fans of the topic, while equivalent articles on fiction are prohibited by WP:NOT. I really think there is no difference between the Harry Potter article I proposed above and these articles, other than that one is currently against policy and the other isn't. Calathan (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong merge per Tavix, Thryduulf, and Calathan. The existence of these articles sets a bad precedent. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Those worrying about precedent don't seem to fully recognise the important of 'The Invincible' in cricket history. (Which is understandable, considering there isn't a huge cricket fan base in the US. Cricket doesn't really lend itself to the 'Year Season' model, and to say that the precedent for creating articles on NFL and NBA players is severely misjudging the relative importance of each. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 05:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The rational given is that they dont meet the policy of WP:NOTDIR #7 which says A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject.[4] Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight.. These article are a summary of the accepted knowledge regarding these player during the Australian cricket teams tour of England in 1948 season. There is much more information that could be included in the individual articles but isnt. In addition some of these have passed through the WP:FA process which WP:WIAFA defines as A featured article exemplifies our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing. In addition to meeting the requirements for all Wikipedia articles, it has the following attributes.[emphasis added].. Gnangarra 05:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Very good point Gnangarra. If we're to be honest, Wikipedia doesn't have the greatest reputation in the wide community. We want more FA's displaying 'our very best work and is distinguished by professional standards of writing, presentation and sourcing'. Yet we are proposing to deleted 'our very best work'. Seems very strange.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 05:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * We should spend our energy developing articles to FA status that do not duplicate existing articles - are all the players biographies FA standard? Is the article about the tour FA standard? Just because an article is well written, doesn't mean it is appropriate to keep it. See also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Response can you please address each article showing where the information is duplicated, I'm willing to discuss any particular individual concerns but this afd has grouped these articles therefore addressing as a group they meet policy requirements. Secondly I havent quoted any other article as a reason to keep(thats what WP:OTHERSTUFF is about). Gnangarra 11:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, we don't have a panel of people telling other editors what they should be "spending their energy" on. If YM wants to spend his own time and effort developing fully referenced articles on topics interesting to him, and they meet WP:V and are valid spin off articles, I don't see why anyone should tell him he should "spend his energies" elsewhere. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep all, as once developed, all the parent articles'd be too big for the daughter articles to merge into. The '48 tour was highly notable and covered in great detail - hence the existence of daughter articles. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, the '48 tour was highly notable and covered in great detail, that's why we have an article on it biographical articles on all the players in it. We don't need to duplicate these articles with one for every player's contributions to the team because it duplicates what we already have in the main articles (and thus there isn't actually much to merge). Wikipedia is not Wisdens, not is it Cricinfo. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Who is this "we" in "We don't need to duplicate these articles with one for every player's contributions to the team"? Firstly, they are more than mere duplicates, secondly I for one find the presentation useful as the main biographical articles would be outsized. -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep There should be a part of deletion policy that says that FA's are not deleted. In these cases the articles are big and significant enough to stand alone.  Merging would just make the parent article too big, and it would be ripe for a fork off. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They may be big, but most of the content is duplicated elsewhere so we are not loosing anything of encylopaedic value. Thryduulf (talk) 09:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong, much of the article is not duplicated elsewhere, at least not in the same form. We would be losing valid encyclopedic information. Other than "WP:IDONTLIKEIT", have you got a argument based in policy? -- Mattinbgn\talk 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep All, I'm going to guess that the nominator comes from an unfortunate country where cricket is not played, so I can excuse and forgive him for not knowing how incredibly important The Invincibles are. I'm not sure about the part of this that involves deleting FA and GA quality articles though, surely if these articles were excessive detail, they'd never have been promoted?  Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC).
 * Keep - while there's a degree of repetition, the repetition seems reasonable in order to provide context for the unique content. If the unique material from all of them was merged into the various match and player articles, my feeling is that they would become unwieldy and overly long, and would likely loose detail in the process. I can understand the point of the nom, but as I can't see a policy that directly applies (given Gnangarra's point regarding NOTDIR), I'm left asking whether or not I see that this level of detail damages or assists the project - and on that score I fall on the side of keep, because the worst I can say is that the articles suffer from too much material. I'd also add that not all of these articles are equal - Donald Bradman and Keith Miller, to name but two, are sufficiently significant in Australian sporting culture that this treatment seems easily warranted. - Bilby (talk) 10:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. To paraphrase what someone said above, these articles represent the intersect of many of the most notable players of the game with one of the most notable cricket series ever played.  All are fully referenced quality articles which a student of the topic would find as a useful resource.  To merge back into the parent article will only see criticisms of too much detail there.  A vague recollection is that some of the early player FACs were criticised for excessive detail and WP:SPLITing was suggested.  Remember, Wiki is not paper.  –Moondyne 12:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all BUT remember to maintain them so the parent articles remain the summary and these the detail, otherwise the arguements for their retention would become fewer. I can understand the concern, but too much detail is never too much, and Wikipedia has the space and these topics the notability. --SGGH ping! 13:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment to closing admin: Please note that if these articles are deleted or merged, they need to go through the GAR or FAR processes first Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why is this? If they are deleted, they would obviously automatically remove any status given to them. They should just be removed from the relevant list.  Majorly  talk  14:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly. There is no need for GAN or FAR. AfD is an entirelly separate process. 189.105.72.234 (talk) 14:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I vaguely remember an FAC delegate saying something about this, but will strike until Sandy or Marskell can comment here. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep all as they are - I remember causing a fuss about articles like the above, and consensus kicked back that they would be appropriate, that they met all of our content requirements, and were completely appropriate. Since this probably wont get the attention from that same group, I will recognize their consensus view by taking their keep as my own. These pages, and pages like them, were vetted for the above before being created. I am surprised this AfD ever happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep all (Diclsoure: I am a member of WP:CRIC) "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article". The articles in question are fully referenced so it should be an open and shut case. That said, I have said before that I'm not comfortable with some of the articles as for someone like Ron Hamence, the main article can easily integrate Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. In fact, it already does. I don't like the sentiment that at least some of these articles have been created just to collect baubles. The statement that "you have to remember the purpose of these articles which is to achieve featured topic status for The Invincibles" strongly indicates to me that these articles are content forks, but as far as I know it is YellowMonkey not BlackJack who is the main author of these articles. That said, something like Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is quite clearly a spinouts from a well developed article. A closer examination of some of the smaller articles may warranted, but a bulk nomination is not. The bottom line is, the articles are well referenced, confirming their notability, and if someone chooses to write them then let them. Nev1 (talk) 14:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Nev1 to an extent. I think some of these articles definitely fail notability guidelines, but a bulk nomination is not the way to do it.  Majorly  talk  14:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * who definately fails notability, isnt the standard for notability significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject, each of these have over 30 different references all independent of the subjects. Gnangarra 15:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So do virtually every player in every season ending playoffs. So why not Luke Walton in the 2009 NBA playoffs? Pump in "Like Walton" and "2009 NBA playoffs" into Google and we get 581,000 hits. I'm sure we can generate an article on him. Luke Walton wasn't even a starter! --Hammersoft (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * VERY IMPORTANT For all of you who are adamant about keeping these articles, ask yourself this question: Can you find any secondary sources that point to the significant notability of the role of each of these players in this tour? If you can't, these articles must go for failing notability concerns, just the same as any non-notable band, book, album, person or company. I don't doubt these people are notable. I don't doubt the tour is notable. Of course it is. These are not the issue. At what point do we draw the line? Boston Red Sox waterboys during the 2007 World Series? There is no possible way each one of these players had significant notability for their specific roles within the tour, other than as members of the team which of course had notability. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes: Fingleton, Jack (1949). Brightly fades the Don. Collins. It's right there in the articles and seems to contain details of each of the players and their role in the tour, although YM would be better placed to comment having written most of the articles himself. Nev1 (talk) 14:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been dozens, if not hundreds, of works about Bradman in which his role in this tour received detailed coverage. Several (all?) of the members of the team have also been the subject of detailed high-quality biographies which obviously include their role in this famous tour. As demonstrated by no less than four of these articles reaching FA status, the availability of reliable sources isn't a problem. Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Bradman wrote an appraisal of each of his players, as did Wisden, and Perry's rip-off of Fingleton has a summary of every player hashed together (two pages). There were also books completely on 1948 written by Bill O'Reilly, John Arlott, Andy Flanagan aside from the fact that many of the players have full biographies of them that have a chapter about 1948 devoted to them.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. It's absurd to compare the roles played by these cricketers in what is one of the most famous test series in cricketing history with the players in a "World" baseball series. --Malleus Fatuorum 15:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why? Saying it's absurd proves nothing. The 2004 World Series was very historic as being the series that broke the curse of the Bambino. Manny Ramirez was named the most valuable player in that series. So why not have Manny Ramires in the 2004 World Series? Make an argument against that, while still maintaining a rational argument that every single player in the 1948 test series is a candidate for individual performance articles. Plus, your point is invalid as well because we already have two articles for a player's performance outside of 1948. See the last two articles placed for AfD. --Hammersoft (talk) 22:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Nobody's stopping you from creating more detailed daughter articles if the main is overgrown, to prevent loss of information  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why set a requirement of "the main is overgrown" when that wasn't the case here. The article size guideline suggests that articles greater than 60kb probably should be divided. However you created these sub-articles when only 4 of the 17 players had articles above that figure and 3 were, and still are, less than 30kb. Secondly, apart from Miller, I'm not aware you actually removed information from the player's main page. So if you are claiming these articles were overgrown to start with, they still are. To me, these articles (except Miller's) were not created because the main were overgrown/needed splitting but because you wanted them as part of the Invincibles Featured Topic and as Nev said on WT:CRIC that's a poor reason for an article to be created. --Jpeeling (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sticking them all in the main article would already violate undue weight, eg, Bradman, and as the section on 1948 in his article was already that size, it couldn't simply added in there, and a lot of the main articles as is have been expanded since then. Most of the others were already GA or above, so adding the other section would also have violated undue.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 00:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure undue is a big problem as you make out, it's not as if you're adding 50kb into the article, the information in the sub-articles contain a lot of extra details that a players article would never. After all if you can conclude Bradman's record breaking 1930 tour in five paragraphs why is it so problematic to do the same for 1948? To convince that there would be an undue problem perhaps you could give examples of important information missing from Sam Loxton's main article which is covered by Sam Loxton in 1948. --Jpeeling (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Remove (possibly by merging). Surely, the post we need is a bio of each player and an article on the Australian tour of 1948.  We do not have Margaret Thatcher as Minister of Education and Margaret Thatcher, Leader of the Opposition or Margaret Thacter as Prime Minster]] as separate article, so that articles on the role of each particular sportsman in a sporting team's overseas visit 60 years ago is not an appropriate subject for a WP article.  No doubt sources can be found in Wisden or in contemporary newspapers, but run of the mill news of 61 years ago is as much non-encyclopaedic as the like today see WP:NOT NEWS.  If the author particualrly wnats to write about this he shoudl set up his own website to peddle his WP:NN material.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually see John McCain and all the bits and bobs about him. Any long serving minister or legislator (if they run for president or if the system is such that the leading senators can be very powerful, like the US) will have lots of info. And yes, any head of govt or executive head of state would have a lot of information even if they were only there for a month due to an unexpected coup, resignation or death. If someone has an interest in Thatcher or any other head of govt/state, forks will be needed quickly. All the US presidents have forks, are you saying we should delete all those GWB job and campaign articles??  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The wealth of sources in each article doesn't establish notability as far as you're concerned? I don't see what you mean by WP:NOTNEWS either: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article". The coverage of the 1948 and the members of the Invincibles is hardly routine; books such as Brightly fades the Don, which recounts the series, are not the standard of coverage for most cricket series. Nev1 (talk) 20:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That view is technically correct but probably only because the last 30 years have seen 70% of Test series. Most modern series don't have books (little market/context/content for two/three Test series) however a lot of post-WW1 and pre-Packer tours do and there are very few Ashes series that aren't covered by at least one book., --Jpeeling (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is something I hadn't considered. It's only natural that the older series would receive more coverage in books as they take time to write and it's difficult to put something like the recent Bangladesh vs West Indies series in context. But it may be that because of the surfeit of international cricket recently that the older matches will be better covered because they are viewed as more significant. Ask me in another 30 years and I may have an answer ;-) However, it's not the notability of the tour in question, it's the players who made up the Invincibles. You're much more familiar with cricketing literature than I am, is it unusual to have a book such as The Invincibles: The Legend of Bradman's 1948 Australians on the team? Nev1 (talk) 14:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * People are still rehashing the 1948 tour all the time, so people are interested in it, eg, Roland Perry paraphrasing Fingleton, including all his jokes and quips, to cash in on the 60th anniversary in 2008  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You may consider me more familiar with cricket literature but I'm unable to answer that question, I don't have enough knowledge of cricket literature and don't have any tour books (there are people in the cricket project who could answer your question better). Taking a look through the descriptions of the tour books I linked to, they appear to focus on the matches although there's a few that include pen portraits of squad members, I doubt they're particularly long and almost certainly they don't describe the performances on that particular tour. Are you aware that the book you mention focuses mainly on the players rather than the matches? --Jpeeling (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Note - Hammersoft has link this at the Village Pump. Not implying wrongdoing on his part, just a heads-up. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why even mention it? This deletion debate was scattered across a number of related interest areas without anybody raising any eyebrow. I think it appropriate to bring the abstract concept to the attention of the community as a whole. Do we really want a class of articles of " with in " type articles? That's what we're really debating here (the arguments that the 1948 team is notable not withstanding; we're already talking about 1953 and 1956 in this AfD). The notice I placed at Village Pump was deliberately neutral in tone. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Why mention it? I would have thought it would be obvious that people here might be interested in having some input. Nev1 (talk) 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * VP is highly-trafficked and is likely to attract increased activity at this discussion, so I just wanted other editors to be aware of that. Again, I'm not accusing you of canvassing; it was a legitimate notice. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 23:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, this goes too far, atomizing the events and massively duplicating information. This is a team sport. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep all - this type of debate is what causes bemusement at best, and amusement at worst, in the much larger and somewhat sceptical world outside the the much smaller and somewhat introspective world of Wikipedia. At the same time as one group of editors is effusing over these articles and awarding them coveted featured article status, another group of editors is 'policy wonking' i.e. trying to get the pages deleted on fine nuances of guidelines. Bizarre! What we have here is a unique set of pages; informative, accurate, well sourced, objective, and tolerably well written. If all the time spent on this discussion was spent on writing new material how much better would the project be? Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are few sources that are specifically about these individual players in the context of the 1948 Invincibles tour. Obviously Bradman has a couple, and I'm sure Keith Miller does too, but the bit-part players are almost certainly undeserving of any more than a passing mention, and so the coverage of those players should be limited to the articles about the tour and the players themselves. – PeeJay 00:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, see above and below  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * PeeJay did a much better job than I did of noting one of the chief problems here. Yes, we know these players played in this series. Yes, we know there's tons of references that note they played. Yes, we know they had X number of runs, etc. from multiple sources. But do we have sources showing notability of their performance being extraordinary external to the overall performance of the team? I think not, at least not for almost all of these articles. --Head policy wonker (or was that wanker?) (talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Incorrect, see above and below. Also nothing in the article is claimed that is not in the source so "notability of their performance being extraordinary external to the overall performance of the team" is irrelevant. Articles on people aren't deleted because it wasn't full of descriptions of world-record breaking things  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 02:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep any of the articles that exist per summary style, but if they're being made just to be made, we can examine them individually. This is not a blanket keep for all of these types of articles, but just stating that some can exist in theory.  hmwith  t   00:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - WP:5P,WP:WIAFA, and especially WP:NOTPAPER, which, combined together, is what makes Wikpedia a better resource than any convential encylopedia. To quote from Wikpeida's own article on Wikipedia Bruceanthro (talk) 01:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC):

Wikipedia seeks to create a summary of all human knowledge: all of topics covered by a conventional print encyclopedia plus any other "notable" (therefore verifiable by published sources) topics, which are permitted by unlimited disk space


 * Keep The articles on the roles of Bradman, Miller, Johnson, Hassett, Morris are definitely keepers and they fill all requirements of WP:V and WP:N. I would suggest re-listing a few of the articles seperately such as Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 for discussion. One states he only played in one test and the other that he "was not instrumental in the team's success". I consider it impossible to discuss these adequately as a group.  florrie  02:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the articles on the peripheral players tsuch as those you mention may be worth examining. Nev1 (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep IMO, we can never have too much information on a particular topic, as long as that information is verifiable and within good taste. I agree 100% with Hesperian. Zagalejo^^^ 05:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, this isn't entirely true; see WP:IINFO. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 05:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I may be exaggerating a bit. But I don't think these articles run afoul of NOTINFO. The level of detail does not seem too excessive to me. I'm sure plenty of cricket fans would like to have it. Zagalejo^^^ 05:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that "I like it" is just as bad a reason to keep an article as "I don't like it" is to delete one. In many ways, this series of articles is the worst example of article cruft I've ever seen. Is this really that interesting to anyone outside the cricketing community? Surely the content would be better off summarised in the appropriate parent articles! – PeeJay 08:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Already summarised in the appropriate parent articles.  Aaroncrick  ( talk ) 08:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this really that interesting to anyone outside the cricketing community? Possibly not, but if not what's your point? –Moondyne 09:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia articles don't have to be "interesting" to anyone—they just have to adhere to content policies and notability guidelines. In this case, yes, these articles are rather specialized, but as I pointed out specialized content is well within the scope of the encyclopedia. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 12:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * They may not have to be interesting to anyone, but it surely helps! Anyway, the very definition of cruft is if "a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question", and that certainly applies in this case! I should also ask, are these people actually notable for their involvement in the 1948 Ashes series or are they receiving articles simply because they were members of the team? I'm sure Bradman, Morris, Barnes and Miller may be very well remembered for this tour, but I strongly doubt that Saggers, Ring et al. are actually that prominent. – PeeJay 15:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. I was all ready to recommend "Delete" on general principle, until I read one of the articles.  After reading it, I am forced to admit that a good encyclopedia article can be written on an individual sportsperson's achievements in one particular competition or series.  However, I would strongly caution that such information be kept in parent articles until the length of well-cited information becomes excessive for those parent articles.  Powers T 13:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment We should also look at WP:CFORK.-- yousaf465  13:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, WP:CFORK doesn't apply to well developed spin-off articles. Do you disagree that these are well developed articles or do you think that they could be integrated into the main article without causing imbalance? Nev1 (talk) 13:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I could quote the comment below.Per Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs-- yousaf465  15:55, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge I was going to simply say keep, but looking at the articles they basically all use the exact same sources; Fingleton, Perry, Bradman, et al. There's no significant sources that I can see (based on my sampling) that suggests that any of these player's actions (during the team in a single year) as a single person is notable beyond the team and/or 1948. These seem like unnecessary content forks and excessive detail. -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 15:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral On the one hand, this is a horrendous precedent, but on the other, enough sources exist that four of the articles are featured. Merge seems the best option, but that likely isn't going to happen, so meh. Resolute 16:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete all - individual players' actions at a certain tournament is certainly not worthy of seperate articles on Wikipedia; merge any and all relevant info into both Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and the individual players' articles. GiantSnowman 18:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all - this 'invincable' team is a complete one-off. I do not want to see this for anything other than the most exceptional of circumstances.--EchetusXe 21:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand that logic. It's been shown that few of the members of this team actually have any sources about their involvement in this tour, so why should each member of the team have an article? – PeeJay 21:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This is incorrect "It's been shown that few of the members of this team actually have any sources about their involvement in this tour"  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep All - The topics are sufficiently notable as shown by their documentation through reliable sources. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Except that it has been shown above that not all of the topics are documented in reliable sources. The tour is, the players are and the team as a whole are, but (with a few exceptions) the individual role played by each member of the team on this tour (which is what these articles are ostensibly about) have not. Your statement is therefore incorrect. Thryduulf (talk) 23:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, they do. Bradman has his appraisal of each of his players in his Farewell to Cricket, Wisden does, and Perry's Bradman's Invincibles also has 1-2 pages summarising each guy at the end of his book, in addition to the chronological description of each of the matches (which was lifted straight out of Fingleton) but anyway, it shows that even in 2008, the 60th anniversary of the team and the 100th of Bradman's birth, people were doing rip-offs of Fingleton to cash in. There was a great flurry of books, whereas other series, there have been nothing written at all after the first few years  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep some - I've been watching this discussion and seem to be falling into line with PeeJay's point that while the articles about the main players (Bradman, Morris et al.) are probably valid enough, the remainder ("one Test only", "didn't make much of a contribution") could probably be up-merged into the team article or simply removed. While they are all extremely well-written/referenced/interesting to cricket fans (such as myself), I can see that such focus on what amounts to a minor role in an extremely notable series is a little bit unnecessary - and does suggest that they have only been written in order to "complete the set". Where the line is drawn (i.e. whether Barnes is notable and Loxton isn't) is somewhat arbitrary, and one that needs applying on a case by case basis, not in a mass deletion debate. In principle, some, if not all, can be kept (chiefly through WP:SUMMARY/splitting from the main article etc. The rest, for which maybe 70% estimated - I haven't read them all is either a) duplicated from the individual player bio or the tour article, or b) mainly background, and not actually focussed on the topic in question, should probably be merged back again.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 23:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)*
 * Keep - good articles, some of them FAs or FA candidates Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per that certain Monkey, who is eminently making sense. -- Y not? 02:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this Afd is simply brainbendingly silly. All of the guidelines together boil down to - can we write a well sourced, neutral, encyclopedic article.....the answer is bloody obviously yes in this case (isn't that what the FA* on a few denotes ?) and the level of material appears too large for a single article - Peripitus (Talk) 03:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic, meaning that the content is not that which you would expect to see in an encyclopedia. That's before you get into the question of coverage of this specific topic in reliable sources; I'm sure there's coverage of each player and each tour, but we're violating WP:NOR by discussing the combination. Stifle (talk) 08:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all Why delete all these well sourced and encyclopaedic articles when there are many more questionable articles lying around? A waste of time unless these are exact duplicates of the player bios but in this case they aren't. Spiderone  08:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The articles are not exact duplicates of the player bios, but parts of them are duplicates of the player bios, other parts are duplicating the article about the team, other parts are duplicating the article about the series. And then you have some unencyclopaedic statistical detail about their performance in each individual match (possibly duplicating articles on the matches as well, although I haven't checked this), arguably violating the spirit of WP:SYNTH (although that would probably not be a mainstream interpretation). For the first part of your comment see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I just hope common sense prevails here. The energy used to delete these articles would be better spent improving Wikipedia. Spiderone  14:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's not really a very good argument. People can choose to spend their time on Wikipedia in any way they choose (within reason), and they are perfectly entitled to get these articles deleted. – PeeJay 14:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Off topic: Since these articles are controversial does this mean that they'll never be on the front page (assuming they stay)? Spiderone  15:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all: The 1948 tour was a historically significant tour for the Australian cricket team (they are called the Invincibles and were arguably the best Australian team to tour England) and it seems to me that the contributions of the individual players to the tour would be a reasonable topic (and indeed one that is discussed in detail in a number of sources). The articles themselves are well-written and well sourced. Many are featured, or in the process of being featured and to delete would seriously impact upon the content of the encyclopedia. Also, a lot of editors have put a lot of hard work in to these articles. — AustralianRupert (talk) 10:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A lot of editors put a lot of hard work into the Gay Nigger Association of America article, but that still got deleted. Anyway the point isn't that the players or team are not notable, but that the details of the individual performances of all the team members are not suitable as articles on Wikipedia (which is neither a book nor a specialist cricket publication) as the parts that do not duplicate existing articles are not encyclopaedic excessive detail. Thryduulf (talk) 10:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well this is what many a user are crying here, you have hit the nail on it's head.-- yousaf465  11:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's worth noting that AustralianRupert's comment about how much work had been put into these articles was tagged onto the end of his post, looking for all the world like and after thought? It looks to me anyway like it's not his main point, or even what most of his post was about. Nev1 (talk) 11:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While that may or may not have been his main point, it is still a point that has been made (and I don't recall anyone else bringing it up previously in this discussion) and so I am perfectly at liberty to respond to it (in a civil manner of course) should I so choose. Thryduulf (talk) 12:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep I don't buy the slippery slope argument here, it is hyperbole in my view. It may be possible that for some of the less central figures a merge would be a better option. But for the most prominent (Bradman in particular, but by no means just him), there is more than enough information to stand in a separate article per Summary style. I might support a merge on some of them, but the bundling of 20 articles in a single AfD makes doing that sort of thing rather unwieldy. Oldelpaso (talk) 14:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Is nobody paying attention to the fact that we're also talking about a 1953 and a 1956 article and not just 1948? So many of these comments are based on the 1948 articles, while ignoring the 53 and 56. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Maybe, just maybe, if you hadn't tried to ram all these through as a bulk discussion, the individual cases you seem the most concerned about would receive more attention. The bulk nom makes it difficult for editors who have concerns with say, Ron Hamence in 1948, but are quite comfortable with Keith Miller in 1953, to make their point clearly. That is one of the downsides of lazy mass nominations. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with this assessment. It would have been advisable to nominate the worst of these first, then the middling ones. A few articles might survive, but those editors who think it is a good idea to create one of these for every single team member will have seen much of their "work" get redirected/deleted, and will find some other way to pay homage to sportsmen. Abductive  (reasoning) 23:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * While personally I wouldn't have bundled the 1953 articles with the 1948 ones, I think that had the 1948 ones been treated indivdually then there would be howls of protest about WP:WAX and how the nominator was trying to get rid of them by stealth in nominating them all individually rather than considering them as a group with copy-and-paste !votes aplenty. Unfortunately I think this is a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't. Thryduulf (talk) 00:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to nominate some of the weakest of these someday. These set a horrendous precedent; there's no "I" in "team"... Abductive  (reasoning) 00:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you look hard enough you will see a "me" in team, which is actually the same thing as "I". Hiding T 11:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The nominator said "All start off with an infobox that starts as a clone to their biographical articles" -> Incorrect and "WP:SYNTHESIS" also false.  YellowMonkey  ( bananabucket ) 01:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. To me, this is a perfect example of splitting an article when the subject warrants more extensive coverage. I look at my work on Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, which created the child article Construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System because the sources warranted it and the parent article was becoming too long. The same principals apply here. I applaud the editors involved in creating these articles and hope they'll continue their work. JKBrooks85 (talk) 01:07, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep All Alas, I lack knowledge of cricket or even rudimentary enthusiasm for any sport. Despite my handicap, I found these to be engaging articles, well written and well sourced. Deleting them seems a tragic waste. These articles epitimize some of the best standards of the 'pedia. Really, I wish I could craft articles half as good as these. Pigman ☿/talk 02:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, per YellowMonkey. Jayjg (talk) 03:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. All of them. I don't care about sports, either. But these are excellent articles. -  Kathryn NicDhàna  ♫ ♦ ♫ 03:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:N, WP:RS and YellowMonkey. All of these players and their contributions during this tour are well documented, and hold a heavy weight of notability in the cricketing world. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - Four articles nominated for deletion are featured articles. People who passed those four articles for featured status are not silly. Nominating multiple featured articles for deletion doesn't make any sense to me. All the articles nominated for deletion are well written, and they have reliable refs; BL Nguyen, Juliancolton, Nick-D, Gnangarra, and Aaroncrick have given solid reasons why all of these articles should stay on en.wikipedia. AdjustShift (talk) 07:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep NW above catches my viewpoint excellently, where the coverage is sufficient to split into seperate article then we should do so and I wish many articles were as good as these. Davewild (talk) 09:45, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep "let's delete a featured article" - maybe not. Rob (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that your sole rationale for keeping these articles? Have you actually thought about the precedent this may set? Or perhaps that the vast majority of the references in these articles are nothing more than stats sites? Seems fairly clear to me that you haven't. – PeeJay 10:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Rob just disagrees with you, he is allowed to do that. Don't assume people don't understand the arguement just because they don't agree. WP:AGF! --SGGH ping! 15:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * But it's a non-reason to delete. We've deleted featured articles before. Just because something is featured doesn't make it immune from being deleted. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Without commenting on the specifics of this AFD featured articles should generally NOT be eligible for deletion until after they have been de-featured. Obviously, if the article blatantly no longer meets FA status the deletion discussion can be phrased as "this article clearly does not meet the FA criteria and it should be deleted for the following reasons..." As I see no claim that the FA articles above no longer meet FA status, they should not be deleted as part of this AFD.  I feel the same way about any other featured content, good articles, and any other recognition that says "at one time this article was a quality article." davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  15:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep the lot and find another venue for this discussion If the 1948 Ashes is not *the* most significant cricket tour ever its only a hairs breath away and I saw several books about the tour last time I looked around Foyles in London. (Does anyone know what happened to sportspages by the way? It had gone when I looked). Maybe some of the content could be merged maybe the format of the articles doesn't justify separate standalone articles but there is no way we won't find a home for the content somewhere and its not going to be deleted for licensing reasons so this is all down to whether to merge or keep, neither of which need an admin to intervene so this should be taken away from AFD and discussed somewhere else. Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep but recommend, if the nominator or others feels it is needed, an Featured Article Review of the four FAs in the list. I will note all of them passed this year (so no glacial shifts in our policy or guidelines towards FA content) so the question is then did they receive appropriate thorough reviews at FA to consider if they are appropriate content.  Some seem to, some don't. But if these are featured content, that fact needs to be re-established before proceeding with deletion.  --M ASEM  (t) 17:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. Stuff like these articles bores me to tears, and I am astonished that apparently reasonable and intelligent people put so much time and effort into them. But I feel the same way about twelve-tone music, and that's not a good reason for purging Wikipedia of detailed articles regarding it.  There are a lot of people out there who do not share my opinions, and who find articles like this valuable. And sports-related articles have the uncommon virtue of resting mostly on objective information (to a level of detail that disinterests most readers, of course). So long as the article content generally meets the requirements of BLP, RS, V, and NPOV, the articles should be kept.  Some cleanup may be required.  There are probably equally detailed accounts of battles and military engagements lurking around Wikipedia, and I don't see anybody proposing their deletion, even though one might make a decent case that the factual details aren't encyclopedically significant, only the outcome and the effects on the conflict involved. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * keep The primary question is whether we have enough reliable sources to support these spin off articles. The answer to that is a clear yes. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete. There's clearly already a strong consensus to keep here, and this discussion will probably be WP:SNOW-closed pretty soon, but for the record: I don't think we should have articles like this. They seem to me to be striking a bad precedent: besides the fact that much of the information in them is duplicated in the players' articles and the main Australia cricket team in England in 1948 article, they simply go into too much detail to be encyclopaedic. Some people may not think there is such a problem, but I do, and this is a perfect example of it. No serious encyclopaedia would cover this cricket tour in this level of detail; Wikipedia is not supposed to be about collecting all the information in the world, and the line has to be drawn somewhere. Robofish (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes there are many people who think, at lot a information will be lost, if we merged the articles. Well we can have separate wiki for this purpose and this information can be transferred there. For this software will be quite helpful MediaWiki. A list of sites can be found here Sites using MediaWiki. I will be willing to help.-- yousaf465   03:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Very strong keep to the bulk of these, solid keep to the weaker ones (e.g. Hamence and Saggers). Would a self-respecting encyclopedia contain these articles? Well yes, if it was the Enormous Encyclopedia of Cricket, it would be proud to. That in turn would certainly be part of the Enormous Encyclopedia of Everything. In particular, there's plenty of sources and commentary and it's not just a synthesis or compilation of news-clippings which is what wins it for me. If you did an article for most of the purported counter-examples, it isn't just the fact that they are usually inherently false comparisons structurally (the problems of comparisons to "Mike Lowell with the Boston Red Sox in 2007" and "Shahid Afridi with Pakistan cricket team in 2009 ICC World Twenty20" have already been eloquently deconstructed above), but also if you were to try to create a sourced article on those topics, you could probably do so, but only by cobbling together dozens of news snippets and box scores etc. For me that's a pretty fundamental difference; there has been very extensive and holistic expert analysis of the roles these players had in the relevant series (including Miller's role in the later series). I am happyish about the "minor" players having spinoff articles too. Despite some claims to the contrary, it seems to me that all the subarticles include information that is not currently in their respective main articles. Their main articles would be grossly misbalanced were this (entirely appropriate) level of detail on a specific series merged back into them, even if technically the articles seem slightly too small at present to justify having a subarticle. This is really more an indication that their main articles need expansion, than that the subarticles are inappropriate. TheGrappler (talk) 00:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can understand the theoretical basis for arguing for deletion of a few of these articles, but candidly, sometimes I despair of this community's ability to prioritize its time. Of all the challenges and to-dos confronting Wikipedia today, IMHO pushing for the elimination of reliably sourced, well-written, non-BLP-implicating, and otherwise harmless content should be well down on the list. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep all. I read the Don Bradman one a while ago and found it just brilliant - what a great way to slice up history, by following one player throughout their matches in their most famous season. I don't know if every article will be quite as great, but still - all these articles do is contribute to making Wikipedia the best encyclopaedia on cricket there is. Which is totally in keeping with Jimmy Wales original intentions - he made a very similar point regarding poker articles. There is potential for "fancruft" in these articles, but critically, these articles do not show that - it's just potential. So the argument for deleting them (particularly en masse!) is very weak. Keep, and let's bask in the joy that is Wikipedia. Stevage 01:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as is. The articles are in compliance with Wikipedia policies such as notability, reliable sources, and NPOV. Cla68 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Merge with articles about each person and the matches. 98.119.158.59 (talk) 04:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. The arguments to delete or merge based on the notion of "precedent" are undermined by the fact that Wikipedia doesn't do precedent; it never has and likely never will.  Wikipedia operates using a consensus model and it is a policy across Wikipedia that consensus can change.  The first rule on Wikipedia is also that one can ignore all the rules if what you are doing is making the encyclopedia better.  These articles make us better, therefore they should be retained.  No-one has as yet detailed how they breach any policies.  The idea that these articles consist of original research or synthesis material is unwarranted, since they are written in exactly the same way as other articles, by summarising secondary sources. There will be no precedent set here, because we don't do things because other stuff exists.  I see the link bandied WP:OTHERSTUFF bandied about enough that I'm surprised it hasn't been mentioned before.  Another portion of that essay that applies to the delete and merge arguments is WP:ALLORNOTHING.  The points the essay Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions makes apply just as equally to delete arguments as to keep. There is no proven case here to delete, there is perhaps some small amount of doubt, granted, but where we are in doubt, per policy, we do not delete. Hiding T 09:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The articles do not breach policy and refer to notable players on a notable team in their most notable season. I really don't see the problem here.  Nutiketaiel (talk) 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Incredibly detailed, incredibly well-written, incredibly well-referenced information about the world: that's what Wikipedia is all about. I hope these articles set a precedent. I cannot fathom how anyone might think that deleting these articles would help our readers in any way. AxelBoldt (talk) 18:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments/Questions. I keep seeing people saying these articles are well written, but I personally thought they were poorly written.  To me it seems that the articles are overwhelmed with details about the course of each match, when instead they should be focusing on the significance of the player's actions.  However, I don't know anything about cricket or cricket scoring.  When I see that the score was #/###, and then it was #/###, and then someone said the conditions were poor, etc., that is utterly boring, and makes me want to stop reading the articles.  I was wondering if perhaps all of those numbers are really impressive to someone who knows about cricket?  If the articles are kept (and it is clear they will be at this point), could perhaps the content be rewritten to make it clear how each event is important throughout the article (i.e. if it took especially great play for the score to go from #/### to #/###, say so explicitly)?  Also, is there anyone who really knows nothing about cricket who finds these articles well written, or anyone who knows a lot about cricket who finds tmem poorly written, or do people's opinions of the writing quality of the articles depend mainly on how much they like cricket? Calathan (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment/Reply. Undoubtedly the more that one knows about a subject the more that statistics are of interest. There is a minority sport called American football for which statistics are the lifeblood. Looking at 2007 Trinity vs. Millsaps football game as a random example, it contains enthralling text such as "Millsaps widened their lead with a 9-play 44-yard touchdown scoring drive that used 3:03 of game time. That gave them a 21–13 lead. The Tigers trimmed the lead to 21–16 with a 22-yard field goal by Peter Licalzi." and phrases that are wholly opaque to the casual reader such as "Blake Barmore (#13) took the snap out of a 5-wide shotgun set at the Tigers' 40 yard line". BTW I am using this as a conversational aside and not to justify anything in the pages under discussion, I know OtherStuffExistst etc :-) Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The level of detail is excessive but how else can you write a featured article about a cricketer's performances in just 15 matches. Every opposition total is mentioned, every 'none-for' is detailed, every single figure score is given, bowler victim's are described and the score at fall of wickets appear frequently. This kind of information would rarely be seen in a player's biography but because the scope of these articles is so tight every last drop of information has to be included. Personally I found the Ernie Toshack article unpalatable to read because there's so much of this peripheral and inconsequential detail, and I'm not at all surprised there are non-cricket fans who think likewise, only surprised there's not more of you. --Jpeeling (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Well I am a cricket fan, and I quite agree that the level of detail is excessive. I'm surpised that nobody has thrown WP:NOTSTATS into the mix of WP:ALPHABETSOUP yet. Thryduulf (talk) 23:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge - goodness, this is the most interesting AfD I've seen in a while. I can see the arguments that the keep people are saying, but I also find the situation absurd, to an extent.  To break down a person's career into such detail is excessive for Wikipedia and might better be suited for other vehicles.  Aside from that, I generally agree with Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs in his assessment. matt91486 (talk) 05:20, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong neutral: I love cricket and I like cricket articles. If I knew more about it I'd write cricket articles myself. I'm disappointed that with all their knowledge these guys have devoted so much time to this sequence of highly repetitive articles, thereby sucking nearly all the interest out of the 1948 tour. 721 runs in a day – who cares any more? 404 for three? – zzzzzzzz. I admire the industry but not the outcome; if common sense ruled in Wikipedia, these articles would have been merged long ago, but it doesn't. I have tried reasoning with the perpetrators, along the lines that low-key performers such as McCool and Saggers don't warrant articles recording their scant deeds on the tour, but to no avail. Meanwhile the articles are flooding the FAC process, and one by one are being hailed as examples of Wikipedia's best work. Wow. Brianboulton (talk) 16:37, 10 September 2009 (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.