Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Umpiring in the 1946–47 Ashes series


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 05:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Umpiring in the 1946–47 Ashes series

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

My fourth afd in this Anglo-Australian cricket fancruft deletion drive I have taken on. We have articles on cricket umpiring, seriously? I dont believe this should exist on Wikipedia, and I also am against a merge because all that really needs to happen is a mention of this on the respective tour pages Pharaoh496 (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:
 * Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Pharaoh496 (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Cricket, England,  and Australia.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment What policy-based reasons are there for deletion? There certainly seem to be enough independent sources to meet GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete We'd delete an article about the Umpiring of Angel Hernandez because that simply isn't grounds for a good article outside 'he's terrible and here's why', which is what this series of articles is equivalent to. Yeah, it's packed with sources, but this isn't a proper article style at all (they read more like a retrospective episode of First Take) and belongs on a cricket-focused wiki, certainly not here.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 23:35, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete unnecessary WP:CFORKs that are mostly POV controversy articles, so nothing worth merging into main articles. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:52, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. Pharaoh496, Nate and Joseph2302 sum up my feelings about such articles completely.  RobinCarmody (talk) 18:44, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete. All incidences of controversial umpiring are covered in the main article, making these unnecessary WP:CFORKs. AA (talk) 09:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:NOPAGE. &#126;~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.