Deletion of Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Comment: both - the 1948 Australian team has been widely covered over the years and as a result the subjects of these articles all seem to easily meet the requirements of  to pass the |General Notability Guideline as I understand it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG)

Comment: per  and OTPAPER. If there was sufficient coverage in reliable sources to get these articles to FA standard, then notability is obviously established. A vast amount has been written about the 1948 "Invincibles" Australian team and players of this era more generally, so I don't see what the problem is. The complaint here seems to be that we shouldn't have a dedicated high quality article on these topics, and instead merge shorter versions of the content into other articles, which doesn't seem sensible to me - surely it's a good thing to have these fine articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:NOTPAPER)

Comment: I was one of the supporters back when the Hamence article was at FAC and wasn't concerned back then that the article failed notability guidelines. If I thought it wasn't notable enough to exist, I wouldn't have supported it. My opinion really hasn't changed. I see no reason why these players shouldn't have such spin-off articles if the sources exist to support bringing such articles to a high level. The way I read , the policy is referring to actual lists of statistics (or text that is effectively all-list), not a narrative that happens to be stat-heavy such as the articles in questions. I tried to make a case mentally for deletion since this debate is something reasonable editors can disagree about, but I just don't see it. Some of the arguments in favor of deleting the pair of articles are questionable to me. For one, I see multiple statements that FA doesn't take into account notability, which simply isn't true. From : articles must meet the "policies regarding content for all Wikipedia articles" before the FA criteria are even considered. As I said, we're implying that the article is notable enough to exist when one of us reviewers supports an article. (While I'm here, I don't appreciate the insinuation that myself and other reviewers are "careless", as most of us take reviewing very seriously, but that's not the main issue at hand). This doesn't mean that mistakes can't be made or that consensus can't change, but it does reflect the beliefs of numerous editors at a point in time; I'd assume GA doesn't back the promotion of non-notable articles either. Another editor commented how few books were referenced in the articles as proof of a lack of in-depth coverage; I count nine for Hamence and eight for McCool, which are higher totals than many (most?) FAs. Without being able to access the books and judge their content, I'm going to assume good faith that some in-depth coverage of the players' tour experiences exists unless I see some evidence otherwise (not mere opinion on what is in the books). There are circumstances in which I would support an FA or GA being deleted, but I would need to see some strong evidence that the article in question is non-notable or worse, like the Bicholim hoax above. I'm not convinced by the arguments here. Just one editor's opinion
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:WIAFA)

Comment: We need to go back to basics here, and not let our judgments be clouded by the article's status. The topic of this article is "Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948" – not anything else. Does this topic meet the |general notability guideline? The first criterion for an article to meet the GNG is significant coverage; I can't see any way in which this article meets that criterion. There have been no articles written about Ron Hamence's role in the tour, let alone a book (or even a chapter of a book). |Notability is not inherited, from either the main tour or Hamence himself. The current standards at |WikiProject Cricket would not allow these types of articles to be written, and I see no reason why we should grandfather existing articles in
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG||WP:NOTINHERIT||WP:CRIC)

Comment: Most of those arguing for the articles to be kept have done so based on the article's status, with no attempts so far to make an argument for the notability of the subject matter. As I noted above, I really don't see how the topics of these articles meet the |general notability guideline. Is there anyone willing to argue that they do
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: both articles and merge only the necessary details into their respective biographies. I completely agree with the nominator's views. Even to someone with a keen interest in cricket history, Hamence was an obscure player at the international level with only three Tests under his belt and what he did on this tour doesn't deserve a separate article. The article goes into an awful lot of detail about what he did in the less important matches of the tour, and that isn't interesting even to me who normally enjoys reading about old cricket matches. The same can be said regarding the McCool article. Maybe we can further improve the Ron Hamence article in time to promote it to FA status and post it on the Main Page instead. For the record, I'm voting "delete" not because  but because it's non-notable as an independent subject. Special:Contributions/1.39.62.143|1.39.62.143
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: This nomination completely misses the essential point that the "on tour" articles were created as part of a Wikipedia:Featured topics drive about the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. It is essential for the purposes of the featured topic to examine each of the participants individually. Take these out and you might as well scrap the featured topic too. The argument about Hamence's statistics is unfounded: there is no table of stats in the article apart from a standard brief summary in the infobox. The article discusses Hamence's performances by matches played and obviously it mentions how many runs he scored each time. How could it not do? This all comes down  per
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:IDONTLIKEIT)