From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, or specifically there is consensus not to delete, but no consensus as between keeping or merging. The discussion on how to resolve that need not take place at AFD, and can be taken forward on the article talk page. Stifle ( talk) 09:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC) reply

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This fork of Neil Harvey does not meet Wikipedia's expectations for notability. Neil Harvey is notable, as is the team he played on, but the intersection of the two does not merit an article of its own. The role section should be merged to Neil Harvey, and everything else simply removed. This article is largely just a collection of statistics. One will notice that the references by and large are not about Neil Harvey, but other people. Just 3 of the 84 footnotes mention him by name. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 03:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply

  • Keep. This article is one of 13 about individual players on that tour, see [1]. It is unclear why just one of so many is being targeted for deletion. WWGB ( talk) 03:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Other similar articles existing is not a reason for keeping this one; note that some have already been merged, e.g. Doug Ring, and it was previously agreed that the articles should be nominated individually as some undoubtedly merit standalone articles due to their contribution and resultant coverage. Please can you try to assess this article on its merits? wjemather please leave a message... 07:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
OK, how about "Harvey had the 4th-highest Test average on the tour." WWGB ( talk) 11:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
No. Please try policy/guideline based reasoning. In general, that required demonstrated significant coverage of the subject, not just passing mentions and statistics. wjemather please leave a message... 11:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
WP:N through multiple WP:RS: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. WWGB ( talk) 12:12, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Apologies, I wasn't clear and omitted "secondary". Secondary coverage please. wjemather please leave a message... 12:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Your ongoing harassment is becoming tedious. Cast your own !vote and stop trying to own the discussion. WWGB ( talk) 12:23, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Additionally, the sourcing needs to support sufficient encyclopedic content to justify this spinout. Reciting endless trivial details from his appearances on the tour, which is largely what we have here, is not encyclopedic. We also have substantial amounts of prose that is entirely unrelated to Harvey, and already exists in the main article. If this can be reasonably condensed into a few paragraphs by removing this fluff/filler (I tend to think it can), then it should be merged. I am open to being convinced otherwise before !voting. wjemather please leave a message... 12:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
Several of these such articles have been brought to AfD by me, most with a strong consensus to merge to the articles on the players themselves. Consensus is that each of these forks must be evaluated individually for notability. It is my belief that this article does not meet our notability requirements. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - if the issue is about sourcing, then you should fix the sourcing, don't just take the lazy option and bring it to AfD because you can't be bothered doing hard work on the actual article. The article is fine as fork of the 1948 cricket tour article and is properly referenced and notable. Just because a lot of the sources are statistics is an unremarkable argument - it's a sporting article after all. The statistics do feature Harvey in them. Deus et lex ( talk) 10:58, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    First, please refrain from making personal comments. Second, more than stats are required to justify such an article. Please provide evidence (i.e. significant coverage of this intersection specifically) to demonstrate the notability you are claiming. wjemather please leave a message... 11:46, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Firstly, this was directed at the nominator, not you so I'm unclear why you are commenting in response. Secondly, asking people to follow proper process and do some hard work to repair a Wikipedia article if they believe it is in error, instead of following a process not designed for a content dispute, is not a personal comment. Following an improper but easy process to avoid doing work is laziness. Thirdly, the nominator is raising a dispute about the sourcing of content, at its heart - that's not a notability dispute, so there's no need for me to "please provide evidence" of the notability. This article is a featured article that has been through a proper review process - it can't just be deemed to be unnotable because some person says it isn't. This is a poor quality nomination that should be withdrawn. Fourthly, please read WP:BLUDGEON and don't do that. Deus et lex ( talk) 13:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    FYI, the target of abuse doesn't have to be the one to call it out. You raised notability as an issue, so it is not unreasonable to request justification for that statement (unnotable is not a word). Of course, the real issue here is whether this spinoff is justifiable based on secondary coverage that is specifically related to Harvey's involvement in the tour, not just primary coverage, teamsheets and scorebooks from which prose is then synthesised. wjemather please leave a message... 13:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    It is not "abuse", so please don't exaggerate. Not following the proper process is laziness and I'm entitled to make that comment - it is not a personal comment at the nominator, it's a point about the lack of the right process. Can I raise again - you are not the nominator here, so please read WP:BLUDGEON and stop commenting on every post that is put forward. I did not raise notability - the nominator did, but what they are raising is a content dispute which is inappropriate for AfD. Deus et lex ( talk) 13:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Crying foul because you cannot address (or recognise/comprehend) the issues is not ok. wjemather please leave a message... 13:48, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I do not appreciate your assumption of bad faith on my part. That is bordering on a personal attack. AfD is a Wikipedia process whether you like it or not. As has been mentioned elsewhere, several of these forks have been merged in the past year. I do not need to be an expert on cricket to know that these forks are unfit for Wikipedia. It's not a "content dispute": I believe this subject does not merit a standalone page in Wikipedia. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    And if you do not understand that the entire point of AfD is to delete or merge or redirect articles which are not notable, then you do not have the understanding necessary to participate at AfD. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:20, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    For the umpteenth time, I am not making a personal attack - I just think the bringing of this article is trying to avoid work to fix up the article. The nature of the complaint you have raised is a content dispute (you have raised inadequate sourcing) - that's not a notability dispute, it's a problem with whether the article needs better sources. You haven't demonstrated that the existing sourcing shows a lack of notability - you've just complained they don't discuss Harvey enough. There's no consideration more generally of Harvey's notability on the tour at all which is what the question would be aimed at if this was a genuine AfD dispute about notability. I think the best case is for this AfD to be closed down and some work done to improve the article - or, to the contrary, for it to be shown that there are inadequate sources in general about this topic (which would be a notability dispute). Deus et lex ( talk) 03:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: there have been a number of similar AfD nominations, all of which have resulted in mergers: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colin McCool with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948. But this one is not quite as clear-cut as the others, as Harvey is a more significant player, and one of the features of the 1948 tour was a handing of the baton, as it were, from Bradman to Harvey. St Anselm ( talk) 14:28, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This is far too detailed to belong in an encyclopaedia. An article on the 1948 tour would be appropriate but not separate articles on each member of the touring team. We should have a joint nomination for all such articles, probably to merge back into the tour article, without leaving redirects. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:14, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    I tried this a while back. Numerous editors insisted the articles must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. So here we are. I think they all should be merged as you suggest. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 21:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep In my opinion there is enough GNG sourcing here on Neil Harvey's participation in the 1948 tour alone for a standalone article. The article here is very well written, although parts of it are a bit bloated, however there is merging information here into Neil Harvey's article, or the 1948 tour article would make them excessive, meaning a separate article here should be acceptable. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge content from the lead and role section (and very little else) to a short sub-section in Neil Harvey. The bulk of the article is duplication from Australian cricket team in England in 1948 and not directly relevant to Harvey's involvement; the Harvey specifics are almost entirely trivial, synthesised, the writers opinions, or massively excessively detailed for an encyclopedia (e.g. three sentences describing his dismissal, and the lead up to it, in the 5th Test; an entire paragraph about Lindwall's "injury" in the 1st Test and Harvey substituting for him, etc., etc.). wjemather please leave a message... 10:35, 21 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge selectively per Wjemather. The fact that particular details wouldn't be appropriate to merge to Harvey or the 1948 tour is probably a good indication that they aren't encyclopedic: excessively-detailed play-by-plays, minor statlines, and anecdotes from each test do not belong on any WP page, per WP:NOT and WP:DUE. This intersection overall also seems very synthetic; if you could easily swap out Harvey for any of his teammates without changing the references, then his role in the tour is not notable enough for a standalone article. JoelleJay ( talk) 06:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge or delete – this article is from another era of Wikipedia really, and while an amazing achievement and great piece of work from the nominator, I think it is pretty clear now that Wikipedia isn't the place for detailed essays such as this. Wjemather makes a number of good points regarding the content and its suitability for the encyclopaedia. Harrias (he/him) • talk 07:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Merge selectively certain parts of the article to the main article about the player. As Harrias says, this article is from a different era of Wikipedia by a user whose contributions to the cricket project are greatly missed. StickyWicket ( talk) 18:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. There's modern sourcing that's been missed and actually does cover Harvey's role on the tour significantly. This includes a feature piece published by the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, multiple pieces covering his regret for his on-the-field actions during the time in England, and a piece in The Australian. There's also a recently published book that describes the article subject significantly. These, in addition to the sources in the article, show that there's WP:SIGCOV of Harvey's time in England during 1948 as a unique thing, so this article in particular seems notable. The article content is policy-compliant as far as I can tell; the content is verifiable, appropriately cited, not original research, and neutral. While it not the case that all articles on Australian cricketers who went to England in 1948 are de jure notable, the subject of this article is notable per WP:GNG—so much so that it's still getting coverage over seventy years later. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 06:44, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Those sources justify a short (sub-)section in his biography article; they are not enough to not warrant a standalone article. wjemather please leave a message... 09:50, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The sources are enough to pass WP:GNG. The amount of sourced detail that's compliant with WP:PAG is not really going to be able to be merged into the main article without massively bloating the page (see: WP:PAGEDECIDE and Wikipedia:Article size), so I think that this fork makes sense. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 17:03, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    Disagree; what you are advocating would still violate WP:NOT (it does now). A short section would cover everything encyclopedic and would not cause any PAG issues in the main bio. wjemather please leave a message... 17:36, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    What part of WP:NOT does it violate? As far as I know, there isn't a WP:NOTDETAILED. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 20:43, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. — Ⓜ️hawk10 ( talk) 17:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC) reply
  • The sourcing that Mhawk10 has shared suggests that this is a keep to me - albeit an article which perhaps needs to be at least partly re-written. I could live with a merge if the alternative was to delete, but there seems to be more than enough detail to suggest that forking off the tour to its own article in this case is justified. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
    The sourcing really, really does not justify the level of detail in this article. The tour already has its own article, and so does Neil Harvey; the amount that is specific to their intersection and DUE is small enough that it would be better suited to either article rather than a standalone. Just looking at the tour recaps(*), the majority of the stats are cited to Cricket Archive rather than to secondary independent sources commenting on Harvey's performance specifically. A minority are basically just rephrasing Fingleton or Perry -- and I would argue that things that would normally be too trivial to proseify in a bio (e.g. detailed stats of particular matches -- we don't include those in-text unless they were especially noteworthy) should need at least two sources reporting them in prose to be DUE.
    (*)The early tour section sourcing goes:
    1. Cricinfo article on gentrifying the game (no mention of Harvey)
    2. CricketArchive (scorecard), Cricinfo (scorecard), CricketArchive (scorecard), Fingleton #1 (unknown)
    3. CricketArchive (sc, cited 2x), Fingleton #2 (unk.)
    4. CricketArchive (sc), Fingleton #3 (unk.)
    5. CricketArchive (sc)
    6. Fingleton #4 (unk.)
    7. CricketArchive (sc), Fingleton #4
    8. CricketArchive (sc), Fingleton #5 (unk.)
    9. CricketArchive (sc), Fingleton #6 (unk.)
    10. Perry #1 (unk.)
    11. CricketArchive (sc), CricketArchive (sc)
    12. CricketArchive (sc), Cricinfo (sc)
    13. Fingleton #7 (unk.)
    14. CricketArchive (sc), Cricinfo (sc)
    15. CricketArchive (sc)
    16. Cricinfo (sc) x5, CricketArchive (sc)
    17. Perry #2
    18. CricketArchive (sc), Cricinfo (sc)
    19. Perry #2
    20. CricketArchive (sc) x2, Perry #3
    21. CricketArchive (sc), Cricinfo (sc)
    22. Cricinfo (sc), CricketArchive (sc)
    23. CricketArchive (sc), CricketArchive (sc)
    I have no idea what is said in Fingleton or Perry, but if they're just giving essentially play-by-plays without specifically pulling out and discussing Harvey's performances (and I would say they should generally both be doing this for each piece of material) then it's clearly synthesis to include all these details. And if that's what the rest of the article is like as well, then we shouldn't have the article. JoelleJay ( talk) 22:18, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
I was basing my opinion more on the sources which have been highlighted by Mhawk10 - the book, for example, which will, I assume, deal with the 1948 tour and Harvey's role in it, in some detail. Certainly that's the case in other cricket biographies I've read. As I said, the article may well need to be re-written to reflect the sources and the detail that we have now. It looks very much to me as if we now have much better sourcing than we did when this article was promoted to FA status. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 22:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neil_Harvey_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948&oldid=1090597580"