Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bristol & District Cricket Association League


 * 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 no consensus to delete, which defaults to keep. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Bristol &amp; District Cricket Association League

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

I am nominating several amateur cricket leagues in England for deletion. None of the articles make any claim to notability, or cite any independent sources, and thus they fail WP:ORG. They are each confined to a single English county, and none of them is even at the top level of English amateur cricket according to this list. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:34, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.


 * Comment The problem with group nominations is that these are all different things. The Priestley Cup isn't a league for instance.  It's a one hundred year old cup competition for teams in the Bradford League.  How many sports competitions are a hundred years old without becoming notable?  There'd be a lot of press coverage over that course in time, here's an article from the Yorkshire Post  for instance for last years final.  I'd say these leagues and competitions have a much greater lineage than most of the US college sports which get covered in Wikipedia and considering that soccer gets covered way down the ladder of acceptability I don't understand why these quite senior leagues should get the chop.  Nick mallory (talk) 12:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought it was convenient to collect them together, but feel free to express different opinions on each one if you wish. I don't regard age as necessarily conveying notability, because vast numbers of sports clubs and competitions were founded in England towards the end of the nineteenth century, and I don't think that makes them all notable. Stephen Turner (Talk) 13:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - none seems notable from a cricket viewpoint, with the possible exception of the Priestley Cup. One caveat: I see that North Somerset Cricket League has been adopted by the Somerset WP, and it is conceivable that the league might be notable from their perspective. JH (talk page) 19:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Or keep at least some of them. The Shropshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire Leagues are all feeder leagues to ECB Premier Leagues, which are the highest level of amateur club cricket in England, and possibly others are too. I wouldn't support having articles on the individual clubs that make up these leagues, but the leagues themselves are, IMO, worth retaining as an integral part of the pyramid structure of English cricket. I think User:Jhall1's point about notability for other WikiProjects is also a consideration, and I'm swayed also by the fact that another sport with a similar pyramid structure, soccer, has lots of articles on leagues that appear much more geographically constrained than these are, and are further down that sport's structure. Johnlp (talk) 21:12, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.
 * Keep Priestley Cup for sure - I'm undecided on the others, but the cup competition definitely seems to have gained notability through the years. I do lean towards Keep to the leagues as well. matt91486 (talk) 22:28, 24 February 2008 (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.