This article is part of WikiProject Cricket which aims to expand and organise information better in articles related to the sport of cricket. Please participate by visiting the project and talk pages for more details.CricketWikipedia:WikiProject CricketTemplate:WikiProject Cricketcricket articles
There is a toolserver based WikiProject Cricket cleanup list that automatically updates weekly to show all articles covered by this project which are marked with cleanup tags. (also available in one big list and in CSV format)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand articles
Latest comment: 6 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
This article is a stub; in the wake of the last 24 hrs it has been nominated for deletion. However, the fact is, every Test series in history has its own pages with the sole exception of the post-apartheid series in the 90s/early 00s in South Africa. Many of those pages are stubs. There is no reason to delete these stubs but no others. Instead these stubs need to be brought in and then updated. Marplesmustgo, not logged in. 88.104.157.120 (talk) 19:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
I reviewed it. It’s completely unsourced. The only reason it didn’t get considered for merging deletion or redirection is that I opted for SD and failed as the event it’s self is notable. There’s no info here which isn’t applicable to the article on the actual event. There’s also no sourcing to explain why the subject is notable outside of its parent subject (the event which took place). I’ll be checking back after a reasonable period (like a day) to see if sources have been added. I’ll probably AfD this if there are no other objections aside from those of people who keep restoring the unsourced material without improving it. Edaham (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
further More the page history is revealing some warring and edit summaries which are starting to become inflammatory. Keep at that and the people involved will find themselves having their editing privileges called into question. Edaham (talk) 01:32, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
At this stage I would object to AfD. There is a discussion at the cricket wikiproject about articles such as this just now that someone has started. I'd suggest that it might be better to allow that discussion to take its course before anything else is done - this has already gotten quite confused and a little nasty. Talking at the parent project would probably be a much better idea first - and, whilst anyone's at that - a list of the tour articles which are in question might be handy. That way people could judge them on an individual basis. I will consider working one of the tours involved up later on to see if I can demonstrate that some sorts of sources exist. Unfortunately these seem to be at that awkward time when there are a lack of online sources easily available. I will probably need to delete a redirect to do that I imagine - in order to demonstrate what can be done. Blue Square Thing (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)Reply
