Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948
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
— User:Giants2008, 00:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:INDISCRIMINATE||WP:WIAFA (Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not)