Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
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
— User:Hiding, 09:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:ALLORNOTHING (Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions)