Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The next Shane Warne

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 delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 16:18, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

The next Shane Warne

The next Shane Warne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article is not encyclopedic, rather speculation on who the "next great player" will be for Australia's cricket team. Article may be better suited to be a section on the Shane Warne page, rather than it's own page. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep It's a common term that's been applied to each spinner since Warne's retirement (IE general coverage of notability). Exactly how long and hard did you look for sources to improve it in the 20 minutes of tagging from the initial creation? Lugnuts (talk) 14:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment I've heard the term "The Next Michael Jordan", "The Next Wayne Gretzky" etc. tossed around for years about players, however it doesn't warrent it's OWN article. I've got no problem however with this being moved to a section on the Shane Warne article itself. It's good info actually, but to warrant its own article I think isn't needed. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. Verging into WP:CRYSTAL territory. I agree that the discussion itself may be sufficiently notable but certainly not on its own, where it serves only as a collection of critical speculation. A merge per the above comment could be another choice, but several of the sources are just from blogs of questionable reliability. Several Times (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about CRYSTAL as the term has been banded about historically (IE x player is billed as "the next Shane Warne"). There's no claim anywhere that they WILL be as good as Warne, but that the term has enough general coverage due to the crisis in Australian cricket. Strewth! Lugnuts (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I wouldn't begin to claim that use of the phrase itself violates WP:CRYSTAL, but rather that having an article consisting only of summarized speculation violates it. Even if the article doesn't claim anything about a Shane Warne replacement's abilities, the claim that one of these individuals could replace him isn't encyclopedic without further context and reliable sources. Several Times (talk) 19:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete - I see no encyclopedic value in this list, probably fails a whole list of article criteria as well. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Article has been expanded and improved to have encyclopedic value. Lugnuts (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete original research and thought. Yes, it uses sources but only to advance the author's own concept. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - Just a general observation on the article: "Australian cricket team have been struggling to find a new off-spinner to replace him" - off-spinner period, I'd have thought any spinner who is good enough would do (it also implies to less informed readers that Warne was an off-spinner). AssociateAffiliate (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete per all of the above. A fanism, unable to qualify. Notable references to the term on each player's page, properly cited, would be sufficient. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:50, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Article has been expanded and improved to have encyclopedic value. Lugnuts (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Hmmm. The article does come off a little like original research, but if the topic's notable, that's not a reason to delete but a reason to improve. I'm on the fence with this one. The term is widely used in the media (for those in doubt, google "next Shane Warne") and has been in use since 2006. But is it really an encyclopedic enough topic for a stand-alone article, or should it be merged to the Shane Warne article under a legacy section? Not sure. Will think on it for a few days... Jenks24 (talk) 21:57, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete I assume that the absence of sources beside most of the names means that there is actually no evidence presented that anyone has ever called those players "the next Shane Warne". Not encyclopaedic. And even if they have been called "the next Shane Warne", that often says more about the person doing the calling than about the cricketer. Do we have any standards as to who has to be doing the calling? If I call the kid next door "the next Shane Warne", can he go in the list? This is a very silly article. HiLo48 (talk) 22:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Has the kid who lives next door to you been picked to play for Australia? No, I didn't think so. Lugnuts (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Ah, is being picked to play for Australia a requirement for appearing in the article? Please point us to where it says that? All I can see is "Each new spinner has been labeled..." The kid next door is new. If you think I'm being facetious and rude, maybe the quality of editing this article has attracted should indicate its absence of merit. HiLo48 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well it goes without saying, which is why I didn't say it. Bottom line is that it's too much work for you to help, so you go for the easy option of delete. Lugnuts (talk) 11:38, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Of course. Or perhaps it could be merged with The next Ian Botham and The next Garry Sobers. Johnlp (talk) 23:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

"delete of course" doesn't meet any policy rationale. Lugnuts (talk) 11:41, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• Keep: It might seem like nonsense, but this term is frequently used by the Australian media to refer to the Australian selectors' obsession with picking up then discarding spin bowlers like dirty laundry. In all seriousness though, a Google search for the term found 14,200 results. This "phenomenon" is clearly well documented, if you include the articles w. Nathan Lyon, recently selected for Australia's tour of Sri Lanka, has already been dubbed by at least one source "the new Warne" (here). The article could do with a rewording of the intro eg. "Australia's next Shane Warne" is a term used to describe..., and perhaps a table of each player's results at Test level. IgnorantArmies^?!

Nice work on the expansion! Note to closing admins - most of the above delete comments were made by deletion monkeys who !voted before the expansion took place. Lugnuts (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for assuming good faith and attacking editors who happen to have a different opinion than you. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:05, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is better now (this thread HAS achieved something!), but still some way to go. Note to closing admins - most of the above Keep comments were made by editors with bad manners. HiLo48 (talk) 11:48, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Interesting comments both above and below, HiLo48 :) Despite the expansion, I'm starting to think if the creation of a "Popular Culture" section in the Shane Warne main article might be a better idea than a whole article devoted to the subject. Thank God they never did make that TV series. IgnorantArmies^?!

I really don't appreciate being referred to as a deletion monkey simply because I thought this page met the criteria for deletion. It does justify its existence better now through the addition of sources and context, but I'm still not convinced the phrase itself is genuinely encyclopedic outside the context of referring to Shane Warne. Several Times (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

• • I might accept "Australia's next Shane Warne" is a term used by crappy tabloid media to describe.., along with a rename of the article to "Idiotic speculation from the Murdoch media" HiLo48 (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment - It's just a term, hardly worth having an article. Where would it stop? Dominic Cork was dubbed the new Ian Botham once, shall we have The Next Ian Botham article, as Johnlp says? Or when Kevin O'Brien retires, shall we have The Next Kevin O'Brien? Or maybe we can have The Next Andy Lloyd (some poor soul at there might want to become the 2nd Test opening batsman not to be dismissed, and take a knock to the head to achieve it)? Terms are always loosely thrown around by media, Monty Panesar and Ajantha Mendis are testament to that. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 13:27, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete Speculative and not-Encyclopedic. This also isn't a notable categorisation of the cricketers listed. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. You may be called "next <insert great sportsperson>" and be dropped a month later. I notice high use of WP:BLUDGEON in this AfD. LibStar (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: WP:CRYSTAL doesn't really apply here, as the article doesn't deal with who the next Shane Warne will supposedly be, rather it deals with the term, as used repetitively enough by the Australian media to comply with WP:V. IgnorantArmies^?! 13:27, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

the article implies anyone with that label will be as good as Shane Warne, why are statistics even provided? The term is so loosely used by journalists with no encyclopaedic definition of what it means precisely, you can play offspin and be called it. Is it someone that will be as good as Shane Warne? Complete POV. Why not make an article on the next Ronaldo [1] or next Bill Clinton next Margaret Thatcher? LibStar (talk) 16:23, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

• Delete. Unencyclopaedic nonsense. Just a phrase. Not even a often-used or well-known or notable phrase. Search "top of the class" - a common English language phrase returns 475 million Google hits and no Wikipedia article. Text could be merged to an article on the history of the Australian Cricket Team, if that exists. Bleakcomb (talk) 02:54, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete as per WP:CRYSTAL. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
• Delete. doesnt belong in a encyclopedia Naomib1996 (talk) 13:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge a short mention into a new legacy section in Shane Warne. Certainly not encyclopaedic enough for its own article. However, as can be seen here it is a phrase used in reliable sources. The dilemma that Australia have in replacing Warne is also widely reported. I think that someone seeing this phrase in the media might well come here for more information on the concept. There are plenty of sources available and it could be wrapped up in a legacy section dealing with the succession question. Bridgeplayer (talk) 23:28, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to Shane Warne. References for individuals mentioned can be applied to their respective articles. Putting them together in a list like this can be construed as WP:SYNTHESIS. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 06:43, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

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.