Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alwoodley Cricket Club


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Alwoodley Cricket Club

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable according to WP:CRIN. StAnselm (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:CRIN isn't a Wikipedia guideline or policy and shouldn't be cited as a reason for deletion. Nevertheless I am unable to find significant coverage for this club (only lots of directory-style listings) and therefore it fails WP:N. - DustFormsWords (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. The fact that WP:CRIN isn't officially marked as guideline or policy doesn't mean that it can't be quoted as the reason why something should be kept or deleted. As an editor interested in cricket I'm pretty sure that over the few years no AfD decision has gone against what is written in WP:CRIN in either direction, so it encapsulates consensus very well - better, in fact, than many "official" guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are a limited number of standard reasons for deletion, and while they're not exhaustive, anything else would be a special case. If you're arguing a delete on the grounds of notability, the proper way to put that is, "Appears to be non-notable per WP:N.  For those interested, the opinion of WikiProject Cricket on matters like this can be found at WP:CRIN."  If you feel WP:CRIN accurately reflects practice you should try putting it up as an official addition to the notability guidelines; I'd likely support it! - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should probably be clear as to why I'm making a point of this. AfDs are one of the most common places where new editors run up against the "back-end" of Wikipedia's policies and processes.  It can be difficult to understand what the relevant policies and procedures are.  That's why it's particularly important for the nominator to clearly explain the policy grounds on which they are basing their deletion request, so that new editors can meaningfully contribute, and not be led into confusing the (intelligent and reasonable) consensus of a single project with the consensus of the entire community. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment It is fine to cite a proposed guideline or essay in AFD. That is how things become recognized as consensus guidelines, since Wikipedia does not have a legislature or Supreme Court to determine what the rules are. Guidelines are just recognition of what is already the practice, and are descriptive. Edison (talk) 00:48, 21 April 2010 (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.