The result was no consensus its clear from this discussion that they do need to be expanded, whether some should be merged into broader scope articles (aka Indian cricket team in Australia) or deleted is indeterminable given the sheer volume and variance in both subject matter and potential sourcing. Gnan garra 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Borderline speedy candidate as there is little to no context to this article. I am also including the following in this nomination (apologies in advance for the huge mass nomination):
Okay. All of these articles are identical - a generic template, a couple references, and the body which states "The (country) cricket team toured Australia in the (years) season." No additional content, context or information. Perhaps there is a better solution to this problem, like merging this information into a single list, but I'm not sure. In any case these articles are superfluous and ought to be purged.
Note : I am in the process of tagging these articles with AfD headers, but it may take a while.
Arkyan • (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I STRONGLY OPPOSE this mass deletion because they are notable articles and even though they are short they should not be deleted as they will be expanded in the future. Each article is fully referenced and do believe that in the future these articles will be expanded so it wastes the time of the people that created these articles. I do not know if you are a cricket supporter but I hope if you are you re consider this mass deletion and appreciate the time and effort that fellow cricket lovers have spent their time creating
I hope you re consider and remove the deletion tags. I would like you to respond on this matter to my talk page. 02blythed 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Sure they tend to be the most recent tours, but isn't that the case for everything on wikipedia? Should we go around deleting all the old State and Federal election pages dating back to 1901, just because they're still stubs? Please give these some time. Recurring dreams 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus its clear from this discussion that they do need to be expanded, whether some should be merged into broader scope articles (aka Indian cricket team in Australia) or deleted is indeterminable given the sheer volume and variance in both subject matter and potential sourcing. Gnan garra 03:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Borderline speedy candidate as there is little to no context to this article. I am also including the following in this nomination (apologies in advance for the huge mass nomination):
Okay. All of these articles are identical - a generic template, a couple references, and the body which states "The (country) cricket team toured Australia in the (years) season." No additional content, context or information. Perhaps there is a better solution to this problem, like merging this information into a single list, but I'm not sure. In any case these articles are superfluous and ought to be purged.
Note : I am in the process of tagging these articles with AfD headers, but it may take a while.
Arkyan • (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
I STRONGLY OPPOSE this mass deletion because they are notable articles and even though they are short they should not be deleted as they will be expanded in the future. Each article is fully referenced and do believe that in the future these articles will be expanded so it wastes the time of the people that created these articles. I do not know if you are a cricket supporter but I hope if you are you re consider this mass deletion and appreciate the time and effort that fellow cricket lovers have spent their time creating
I hope you re consider and remove the deletion tags. I would like you to respond on this matter to my talk page. 02blythed 19:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC) reply
Sure they tend to be the most recent tours, but isn't that the case for everything on wikipedia? Should we go around deleting all the old State and Federal election pages dating back to 1901, just because they're still stubs? Please give these some time. Recurring dreams 10:58, 15 June 2007 (UTC) reply