Deletion of Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Comment: per 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: or perhaps merge the "role" section somewhere, and redirect to wherever that is).  I've always seen this series of articles as being a failure to condense the subject into an encyclopedia article (or articles).  Books focusing on a notable subject would generally be expected to cover the subject in detail, and just because information can be cited to books doesn't mean that it should be included in an encyclopedia article.  An essential part of writing an encyclopedia article is selecting the portions of the information available that are important to understanding the topic.  This article consists primarily of information such as the score or outcome at different points in different matches.  Those are minute details that are not at all essential to understanding the main notable subject of the Australian cricket team in England in 1948.  Except for the "role" section, this article is all material that encyclopedia editors should have selected to ''not'' include in Wikipedia.  While I'm not sure if there is a policy or guideline that specifically addresses what I'm getting at, I think  comes closest, in that it states that articles should not primarily be a summary of what happened, but instead should focus on why those events are considered important.  I do, however, think that the "role" section of this article is better content that could perhaps be salvaged by merging it to another article (perhaps by combining it with similar content from other articles on other members of the team).  A summary of how each member of the team affected the overall outcome of the test matches seems more like appropriate content for an encyclopedic set of articles on the topic than the rest of what is included in these articles
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:IINFO)

Comment: There's a ton of these articles in :Category:The Invincibles (cricket)|this category. And don't waste your time telling me about . I think they're all FAs too
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: largely per Nick-D.  The nominator seems to have misinterpreted the , which says "''If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.''".  Ring's performance in the series has received this significant coverage in indepdenent and reliable sources, so he is notable per Wikipedia's standards
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)