Deletion of Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Comment: as legitimate, well sourced spin out articles. This AfD is provocative, unnecessary and will serve only to further wikidramas. "I also note that Wikipedia: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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Whacking with a wet trout (WP:TROUT)

Comment: We should also look at 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: The rational given is that they dont meet the policy of  #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  process which  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTDIR||WP:FA||WP:WIAFA)

Comment: per ,  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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:RS)

Comment: 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket&oldid=303776772#Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates.2FDoug_Ring_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948.2Farchive1 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 Ron Hamence#International debut, England, India and the Invincibles|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 "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AWikiProject_Cricket&diff=302569624&oldid=302565737 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 #Article spinouts – "Summary style" articles|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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:CFORK)

Comment: 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  by discussing the combination
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)

Comment: 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Summary style (WP:SUMMARY)

Comment: 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  NEWS.  If the author particualrly wnats to write about this he shoudl set up his own website to peddle his  material
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NN)

Comment: 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  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 .  The points the essay Wikipedia: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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:ALLORNOTHING)

Comment: 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 ing was suggested.  Remember, m:Wiki is not paper.  &ndash
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Splitting (WP:SPLIT)

Comment: There's clearly already a strong consensus to keep here, and this discussion will probably be -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
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Snowball clause (WP:SNOW)

Comment: The articles on the roles of Bradman, Miller, Johnson, Hassett, Morris are definitely keepers and they fill all requirements of  and . 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
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V||WP:N)