Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/99.94
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
User:ALoan has suggested a rename might assist. If the article was renamed, say Donald Bradman's Test career (or something better), with a redirect from 99.94. Any support for this idea? --Dweller 19:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- What would such an article contain that doesn't just go in the donald bradman article? Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- It already contains material that isn't (and shouldn't be) in the Don Bradman article. Just like there are sub-articles that go into detail on a whole range of topics. This is a detailed article about a hugely notable achievement; arguably the greatest and most extraordinary achievement ever accomplished in the history of sport (and that's an Englishman speaking, not an Aussie.) The detail of that achievement is notable. The detail of the curiously human failing that caused the final figure to fall agonisingly short of 100 is similarly notable and encyclopedic, but too fine to include in an autobiographic article in anything more than sketch form. To give an analogy, it's like saying that there should be no Mona Lisa article, because the information within it should all be contained within the Leonardo da Vinci biography. I think people are having trouble with this article for a variety of reasons:
- If they are unfamiliar with cricket they do not realise how iconic this stat is (and therefore notable)
- The article's title is unusual
- Early versions of the article admittedly added little to the Bradman article
- It already contains material that isn't (and shouldn't be) in the Don Bradman article. Just like there are sub-articles that go into detail on a whole range of topics. This is a detailed article about a hugely notable achievement; arguably the greatest and most extraordinary achievement ever accomplished in the history of sport (and that's an Englishman speaking, not an Aussie.) The detail of that achievement is notable. The detail of the curiously human failing that caused the final figure to fall agonisingly short of 100 is similarly notable and encyclopedic, but too fine to include in an autobiographic article in anything more than sketch form. To give an analogy, it's like saying that there should be no Mona Lisa article, because the information within it should all be contained within the Leonardo da Vinci biography. I think people are having trouble with this article for a variety of reasons:
-
- I'm hoping that a name change helps with 2) that the substantial expansion I've made helps with 3) and I've not a clue how to deal with 1), other than point to thousands of Google hits (c.15,000 for "99.94 Bradman") or refer people to this charming page at the Bradman library. --Dweller 09:01, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
Never mind the Mona Lisa, how about I Love to Laugh?? --Dweller 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
-
- No, it's not about unfamiliarity with the subject, the title with the article or anything else. It just doesn't need a seperate article. Keep it in the main Bradman article. - fchd 05:24, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
