727:. That would be absurd, would it not? But I see little difference between that and these "with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" forks. I'm not suggesting the team was not very culturally significant, I would oppose any attempt to have the articles on team or the players themselves deleted. Based on the outcome of the Doug Ring 1948 AfD, it is clear the community feels at least some of these sort of articles are not fit for Knowledge (XXG) today (they are a decade plus old). The listing of all of these for deletion, which was NOT my intent, seems to be attracting lots of "Speedy keep, this is a trainwreck, etc" comments, which are not unjustified. That said, I can't nominate any of these individually until the deletion tags on all the other articles are removed.
420:- I think it's a mistake to bundle all these articles in on AfD. The arguments that apply to the article about Toshack, which are used as the rationale for deletion, do not apply to every article in the bundle. Bradman, for example. I don't know if the bundle was intentional or whether done by mistake. If there are articles similar in notability to the Toshack one - which appears to have some similarities with the article on Ring - then they might be worth bundling. But there are others that are really very different and would probably be better considering either in other bundles or in some cases separately (Bradman most notably).
601:
here, in addition to considering the deletion of the article I nominated here, was to gather community consensus as to what the hell we do with all of these forks. I think it's clear at least some should not continue to exist. The question, of course, is which ones get the axe. Notice I said "For reference, the other articles which I am referring to include the following:" that does not indicate I was intending for them all to be listed for deletion along with Ernie
Toshack 1948. I should have been clearer since the result is more or less a trainwreck. If I must I will nominate a few articles at a time for deletion.
504:. There is no doubt that some (maybe most, maybe all) of these should be merged/redirected to the main bio article, however the difference between (for example) Bradman and Toshack is so stark, they cannot possibly be discussed together. I see no reason to drag each individual article through AFD, and suggest a bold merge & redirect approach to these articles (which would follow what happened with Doug Ring after AFD) and then we can discuss individually if/when there is any objection to such action.
250:, potentially anything relevant in the role section merged there instead. I would also like to establish a community consensus on the encyclopedicness (is that a word? If not I'm making it one) of all the "with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" articles. I am concerned that this article, along with the rest, are little more than collections of statistics and improper forks of the articles we have on the athletes themselves. It is no coincidence that the infobox at
789:
Toshack 1948. Alternatively, this can be procedurally closed and then I will immediately renominate
Toshack 1948 for deletion, along with several other of these articles (separately, one AfD for each article) which discussion above has indicated are lacking in sufficient notability to justify their retention. If a second deletion is opened up on this, I will give a ping to all the participants here.
243:
722:
The way I see it is: The team is obviously notable, the players are each notable, the season is notable. What I cannot comprehend are all of these weird forks on each athlete at the games, which to me seems to be a successful attempt to spam as many GAs/FAs as possible from this topic area. If these
707:
I didn't suggest all were justified - and it may be that the articles on the Test matches might not be. It's almost like we need someone to take a look at them in the round isn't it? As to why they might be justified: 1948; Australia. It's really culturally significant - much more so than, say, the
600:
I've gotten into trouble for doing bold redirects on articles before, and those were stubs. I really am not interested in unilaterally redirecting GAs or FAs. The formal deletion process should be followed here which is why I nominated Ernie
Toshack 1948 for deletion. As I said below, the purpose
788:
This appears to have gone off the rails and become a trainwreck (pun intended). The question is, what do we do to put the train back on the rails? I would support having all the deletion notices for the articles, besides Ernie
Toshack 1948, removed for the time being, and refocusing this just on
620:
I was not intending for them all to be bundled, I wanted to list them all to give commenters an idea of which articles should or shouldn't be deleted. And in that sense, this has been helpful; there's a general consensus articles like
Toshack 1948, along with the similar articles on McCool and
207:
807:
Get this closed and renominate whatever article you want to nominate - perhaps with a very small bundle. I wouldn't do too many at a time. There's too much wordage here to get this back on track wrt
Toshack (which isn't, in my view, clear cut either way fwiw).
137:
132:
141:
708:
FA cup match or the 2008 Orange Bowl, both of which have been TFA this month. There's certainly justification that it needs more than a single article to develop the levels of detail required - the tour article is 13,000 words plus long apparently.
124:
858:
FFS, would someone just procedurally close this so people stop screaming "speedy keep" at me? Again, I didn't intend for these all to be nominated, and people are using that as an excuse to ignore the clear issues with these articles. Thanks.
635:
I'm not sure there's a consensus about
Toshack. I think you could, with a merge discussion, get consensus on Hamence and probably McCool and maybe Saggers. I wouldn't extend anything from this discussion to Toshack or similar articles.
246:. I have chosen this article in particular because of quotes like "Toshack was used sparingly in the tour games" and "An inept batsman". Refer also to the discussion at the Doug Ring 1948 AfD. I believe this should be redirected to
822:^^ This. There's no harm in taking them one at a time, either. It might take the best part of year (although the Bradman one would probably(!) be a speedy keep), but at least each one can be viewed on its own merits, or lack of.
875:
Just going to explain that I tagged all of these as I interpreted this discussion as attempting to build consensus around the existence of all of these articles. For that consensus to be valid, all of them needed to be tagged.
201:
239:
128:
270:
325:
300:
251:
120:
72:
568:
442:
320:
315:
305:
572:
564:
330:
295:
290:
285:
265:
335:
310:
280:
275:
238:
Yes, I know this is a featured article. No, I'm not crazy or being disruptive. Quite frankly, this article never should have even existed. For those unfamiliar, this is one of the articles within
723:
articles are allowed to stand, it is setting a precedent that we can make all sorts of ridiculous forks on athletes in particular seasons and games. Imagine if we had for instance, an article on
469:
Some of these people are still household names decades after the event and I know them even though the time period was before I was born. Some of them I have never heard of. Clearly
258:. The only sections of these articles that are in any way encyclopedic in my view are the role sections. Everything else is just collecting statistics and not fit for Knowledge (XXG).
357:
164:
222:
889:
868:
853:
830:
817:
798:
780:
763:
736:
717:
702:
684:
666:
645:
630:
610:
591:
554:
537:
512:
496:
482:
461:
429:
409:
389:
369:
349:
66:
189:
397:
377:
575:
only played 1 Test. So they seem like the "low-hanging fruit" for this (especially as
Saggers and McCool are GAs not FAs, so likely to be slightly less contentious).
183:
546:
True, but some are such obvious merge/redirect candidates, especially in the wake of the Ring case, that similar bold action certainly shouldn't be contested.
96:
179:
111:
675:
Rather unfortunately, this is one of those times when at least one - and quite probably three or more - of these articles are almost certainly justified.
229:
445:, as he didn't play any Test matches, whereas others are likely not. Either way, they aren't all clearly non-notable, so shouldn't be bundled together.
771:
We should be discussing these separately and not as a bundle, on some of these there may well be enough information to warrant a separate article.
657:
Having articles about a persons playing on one particular team is virtually never justified, and there is no reason to have any of these articles.
754:
which is what this AfD is about, I'm assuming. Clearly nothing like notable enough to warrant such a detailed article about a particular season.
724:
195:
91:
84:
17:
621:
Hamence, don't justify forks. Though I'd argue all of these are pointless forks, clearly the community doesn't share that view.
864:
794:
732:
698:
626:
606:
405:
385:
365:
345:
105:
101:
690:
849:
906:
40:
813:
713:
680:
641:
425:
168:
244:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the
Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination)
885:
860:
844:. Inappropriate nomination. These should be discussed individually. I can see at least 3 who are easily notable.
790:
728:
694:
662:
622:
602:
401:
381:
361:
341:
845:
809:
709:
676:
637:
421:
61:
438:
902:
36:
776:
658:
587:
581:
533:
527:
457:
451:
487:
Could an admin please close this and then we can consider the few that might need to be deleted? --
215:
56:
242:. One of these was previously brought to AfD with a consensus to merge, that can be viewed at
80:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
901:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
478:
772:
759:
576:
522:
492:
446:
521:
The issue is that people won't agree on what "those articles" that should be merged are.
881:
548:
506:
255:
247:
824:
158:
261:
For reference, the other articles which I am referring to include the following:
474:
755:
488:
693:. What justifies all of these forks in addition to an article for each test?
877:
240:
Knowledge (XXG):Featured topics/Australian cricket team in
England in 1948
271:
Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
326:
Arthur Morris with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
301:
Bill Johnston with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
252:
Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
121:
Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
73:
Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
443:
Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
321:
Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
316:
Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
306:
Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
897:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
689:
There are already articles for each of the five tests, such as
331:
Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
296:
Ian Johnson with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
291:
Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
286:
Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
266:
Don Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
336:
Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
311:
Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
281:
Bill Brown with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
276:
Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
725:
Tom Brady with the New England Patriots in Boston in 2015
154:
150:
146:
53:
441:. Some of them are probably reasonable to delete e.g.
214:
228:
358:list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
909:). No further edits should be made to this page.
396:Note: This discussion has been included in the
376:Note: This discussion has been included in the
356:Note: This discussion has been included in the
398:list of Australia-related deletion discussions
8:
378:list of Cricket-related deletion discussions
112:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
571:didn't play any Tests in that series, and
395:
375:
355:
254:is but a copy and paste of the one at
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
97:Introduction to deletion process
1:
691:First Test, 1948 Ashes series
890:01:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
869:01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
854:23:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
831:20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
818:19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
799:18:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
781:18:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
764:18:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
737:18:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
718:18:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
703:17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
685:17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
667:15:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
646:17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
631:15:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
611:15:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
592:13:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
555:13:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
538:12:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
513:11:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
497:11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
483:11:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
473:to lump them all together.
462:09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
430:08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
410:01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
390:01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
370:01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
350:01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
67:16:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
87:(AfD)? Read these primers!
926:
752:Delete the Toshack article
899:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
467:Speedy procedural close
786:Comment from nominator
169:edits since nomination
85:Articles for deletion
861:Trainsandotherthings
791:Trainsandotherthings
729:Trainsandotherthings
695:Trainsandotherthings
623:Trainsandotherthings
603:Trainsandotherthings
402:Trainsandotherthings
382:Trainsandotherthings
362:Trainsandotherthings
342:Trainsandotherthings
810:Blue Square Thing
710:Blue Square Thing
677:Blue Square Thing
659:John Pack Lambert
638:Blue Square Thing
422:Blue Square Thing
418:Oppose the bundle
412:
392:
372:
102:Guide to deletion
92:How to contribute
917:
827:
551:
509:
233:
232:
218:
162:
144:
82:
34:
925:
924:
920:
919:
918:
916:
915:
914:
913:
907:deletion review
825:
553:
549:
511:
507:
175:
135:
119:
116:
79:
76:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
923:
921:
912:
911:
893:
892:
873:
872:
871:
838:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
802:
801:
783:
766:
748:
747:
746:
745:
744:
743:
742:
741:
740:
739:
670:
669:
651:
650:
649:
648:
615:
614:
613:
598:
597:
596:
595:
594:
558:
557:
547:
541:
540:
516:
515:
505:
499:
485:
464:
432:
414:
413:
393:
373:
339:
338:
333:
328:
323:
318:
313:
308:
303:
298:
293:
288:
283:
278:
273:
268:
236:
235:
172:
115:
114:
109:
99:
94:
77:
75:
70:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
922:
910:
908:
904:
900:
895:
894:
891:
887:
883:
879:
874:
870:
866:
862:
857:
856:
855:
851:
847:
843:
840:
839:
832:
829:
828:
821:
820:
819:
815:
811:
806:
805:
804:
803:
800:
796:
792:
787:
784:
782:
778:
774:
770:
767:
765:
761:
757:
753:
750:
749:
738:
734:
730:
726:
721:
720:
719:
715:
711:
706:
705:
704:
700:
696:
692:
688:
687:
686:
682:
678:
674:
673:
672:
671:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
652:
647:
643:
639:
634:
633:
632:
628:
624:
619:
616:
612:
608:
604:
599:
593:
589:
585:
584:
580:
579:
574:
570:
566:
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
552:
545:
544:
543:
542:
539:
535:
531:
530:
526:
525:
520:
519:
518:
517:
514:
510:
503:
500:
498:
494:
490:
486:
484:
480:
476:
472:
468:
465:
463:
459:
455:
454:
450:
449:
444:
440:
439:WP:TRAINWRECK
436:
433:
431:
427:
423:
419:
416:
415:
411:
407:
403:
399:
394:
391:
387:
383:
379:
374:
371:
367:
363:
359:
354:
353:
352:
351:
347:
343:
337:
334:
332:
329:
327:
324:
322:
319:
317:
314:
312:
309:
307:
304:
302:
299:
297:
294:
292:
289:
287:
284:
282:
279:
277:
274:
272:
269:
267:
264:
263:
262:
259:
257:
256:Ernie Toshack
253:
249:
248:Ernie Toshack
245:
241:
231:
227:
224:
221:
217:
213:
209:
206:
203:
200:
197:
194:
191:
188:
185:
181:
178:
177:Find sources:
173:
170:
166:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
139:
134:
130:
126:
122:
118:
117:
113:
110:
107:
103:
100:
98:
95:
93:
90:
89:
88:
86:
81:
74:
71:
69:
68:
65:
64:
60:
59:
54:
52:by nominator
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
898:
896:
846:StickyWicket
841:
823:
785:
768:
751:
654:
617:
582:
577:
528:
523:
501:
470:
466:
452:
447:
434:
417:
340:
260:
237:
225:
219:
211:
204:
198:
192:
186:
176:
78:
62:
57:
49:
47:
31:
28:
842:Speedy keep
769:Speedy keep
471:not helpful
435:Speedy keep
202:free images
773:Rugbyfan22
655:Delete all
903:talk page
550:wjemather
508:wjemather
50:withdrawn
37:talk page
905:or in a
886:contribs
563:Agreed,
165:View log
106:glossary
58:Spinning
39:or in a
826:Lugnuts
618:Comment
573:Saggers
565:Hamence
502:Comment
208:WP refs
196:scholar
138:protect
133:history
83:New to
578:Joseph
569:McCool
524:Joseph
475:Aoziwe
448:Joseph
180:Google
142:delete
756:Nigej
489:Bduke
223:JSTOR
184:books
159:views
151:watch
147:links
63:Spark
16:<
882:talk
878:Elli
865:talk
850:talk
814:talk
795:talk
777:talk
760:talk
733:talk
714:talk
699:talk
681:talk
663:talk
642:talk
627:talk
607:talk
588:talk
583:2302
567:and
534:talk
529:2302
493:talk
479:talk
458:talk
453:2302
437:per
426:talk
406:talk
386:talk
366:talk
346:talk
216:FENS
190:news
155:logs
129:talk
125:edit
230:TWL
163:– (
888:)
884:|
867:)
852:)
816:)
797:)
779:)
762:)
735:)
716:)
701:)
683:)
665:)
644:)
629:)
609:)
590:)
536:)
495:)
481:)
460:)
428:)
408:)
400:.
388:)
380:.
368:)
360:.
348:)
210:)
167:|
157:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
140:|
136:|
131:|
127:|
55:.
880:(
863:(
848:(
812:(
793:(
775:(
758:(
731:(
712:(
697:(
679:(
661:(
640:(
625:(
605:(
586:(
532:(
491:(
477:(
456:(
424:(
404:(
384:(
364:(
344:(
234:)
226:·
220:·
212:·
205:·
199:·
193:·
187:·
182:(
174:(
171:)
161:)
123:(
108:)
104:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.