Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernie Toshack 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The result was withdrawn by nominator [1]. SpinningSpark 16:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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 Wikipedia:Featured topics/Australian cricket team in England in 1948. One of these was previously brought to AfD with a consensus to merge, that can be viewed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination). 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 Ernie Toshack, 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 Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is but a copy and paste of the one at Ernie Toshack. 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 Wikipedia.

For reference, the other articles which I am referring to include the following:

Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the bundle - 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). Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:TRAINWRECK. Some of them are probably reasonable to delete e.g. Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, 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. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:01, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy procedural close 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 not helpful to lump them all together. Aoziwe (talk) 11:12, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could an admin please close this and then we can consider the few that might need to be deleted? --Bduke (talk) 11:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. 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. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:31, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that people won't agree on what "those articles" that should be merged are. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:27, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 13:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Hamence and McCool didn't play any Tests in that series, and Saggers 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). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 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 Hamence, don't justify forks. Though I'd argue all of these are pointless forks, clearly the community doesn't share that view. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 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.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are already articles for each of the five tests, such as First Test, 1948 Ashes series. What justifies all of these forks in addition to an article for each test? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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 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 Tom Brady with the New England Patriots in Boston in 2015. 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 Wikipedia 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. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:51, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Toshack article 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. Nigej (talk) 18:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep 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. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 18:42, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from nominator 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 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. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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). Blue Square Thing (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

^^ 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. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:36, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Inappropriate nomination. These should be discussed individually. I can see at least 3 who are easily notable. StickyWicket (talk) 23:28, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:23, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.