Jump to content

Talk:Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former featured articleRon Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on November 25, 2015.
Did You Know Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 14, 2009Good article nomineeListed
May 26, 2009Featured article candidateNot promoted
July 14, 2009Featured article candidatePromoted
September 11, 2009Articles for deletionKept
January 6, 2010Featured topic candidatePromoted
November 19, 2015Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 21, 2022Articles for deletionNo consensus
January 29, 2022Articles for deletionMerged
January 31, 2022Featured article reviewDemoted
Did You Know A fact from this article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on January 3, 2009.
The text of the entry was: Did you know ... that Invincibles members Colin McCool, Doug Ring and Ron Hamence referred to themselves as "ground staff" because they were rarely given an opportunity to play cricket?
Current status: Former featured article

Orphaned references in Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948

[edit]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "o":

  • From Ron Saggers with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: "Player Oracle RA Saggers 1948". CricketArchive. Retrieved 2008-12-18.
  • From Don Tallon with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: "Player Oracle D Tallon 1948". CricketArchive. Retrieved 2008-12-18.
  • From Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948: "Player Oracle KR Miller 1948". Retrieved 2008-12-10.

Reference named "Allen 1999":

  • From Doug Ring: Allen, Peter (1999). The Invincibles: The Legend of Bradman's 1948 Australians. Mosman, NSW, Australia: Allen and Kemsley. pp. 76–79. ISBN 1-875171-06-1.
  • From Ron Hamence: Allen, pp. 76–79.

Reference named "av":

Reference named "p176":

Reference named "sched":

Reference named "Pollard":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:03, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One reference

[edit]

current ref 28 starts with "Barnes, p.180" but the book is not listed underneath.--GDibyendu (talk) 03:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doen YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 05:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

[edit]

The notability of this article is dubious - it really shouldn't be a featured article. Hamence didn't even play a test. Most of the references are passing mentions and routine coverage. What we have here of substance could be merged to Australian cricket team in England in 1948. StAnselm (talk) 08:23, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD discussion has been closed as no consensus. I think that means the notability tag should stay; perhaps there could be a merge discussion. But I think the next step might be a FA review, since the FA status seemed to be important in the deletion discussion. StAnselm (talk) 05:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the FA criteria don't deal with things like notability - from what I can tell, FA reviews seem to focus on style. StAnselm (talk) 05:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given the AfD result, I've removed the tag. I'd note that notability is determined by the availability of reliable sources which cover the topic, and not how important or otherwise individual editors consider it (I don't think that this is an important topic, but the references are clearly there). Nick-D (talk) 07:34, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No - there is obviously no consensus at this point whether the subject is notable - that is, whether there is significant coverage in reliable sources. The tour is obviously notable, but not this player's role in it. StAnselm (talk) 10:10, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just re-removed the tag. If there had been a consensus that the topic wasn't notable, the article would have been deleted. Instead, there was judged to be no consensus, and even a brief look at the AfD makes it clear that the keep votes outnumbered the deletes. I don't think it's a good idea to maintain this kind of tag in these circumstances: it's basically your view versus that of the AfD. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

deletion

[edit]
You mean Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead? GRAPPLE X 11:20, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You should probably explain why the article is "ridiculous drivel" and "nonsensical bullshit." Brutannica (talk) 02:51, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "threshold" is determined by coverage in reliable sources, and if that's satisfied, then we should welcome rather than spurn "hundreds of millions of articles". GRAPPLE X 00:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:N. I'd also note that the sources were sufficient to develop the article to a state in which it was judged to be of Wikipedia's highest level of quality. Wikipedia is full of articles on not terribly important topics, which is generally a good thing given that its very broad coverage is one of the factors which makes Wikipedia a valuable resource. Nick-D (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per the Five Pillars, Wikipedia incorporates features of "specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers". There's nothing "demeaning" about this article... hyperbole will get you nowhere. – Juliancolton | Talk 04:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Given that Wikipedia has articles like Adolf Hitler's possible monorchism, Icelandic Phallological Museum, Human–animal breastfeeding and about a zillion articles on porn actors, this is hardly dragging standards down. Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For the record Jrgilb, before the article appeared on the main page, I nominated for deletion, and the discussion is here. Harrias talk 11:10, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ron_Hamence_with_the_Australian_cricket_team_in_England_in_1948&oldid=1248851575"