Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Burndennett 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. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Burndennett Cricket Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Seems to fail notability (sports) as they play in the second tier of a provincial league and, other than inevitable match reports, have no significant independent coverage. GNG probably is not met because the remaining sources relate to ephemeral non-notable news stories about a bar, a fire and possibly losing their ground. Sitush (talk) 11:22, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete : Clearly fails both WP:GNG and WP:CLUB, the argument that the WikiProject Cricket guidelines apply here is just laughable, you can not transpose sports notability across different countries, Cricket is much bigger is England or Australia than Ireland. It is also not the place of a WikiProject to trample over the centrally agreed guidelines such as WP:GNG or WP:CLUB. Mtking (talk) 23:28, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I had a run-in with a WP Proj situation on a fairly recent AfD regarding a fork from University of East London. My argument then was that the Universities project guidelines would have disallowed the fork. The consensus was that the project guidelines were, to put it bluntly, irrelevant. Even thought I had raised the issue there prior to the AfD. I'll try to dig out the precise AfD if anyone is remotely interested. It was related to the UEL law school. - Sitush (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I remember that AfD (it's at Articles for deletion/University of East London School of Law) and the article was kept as a breakout article from the main University of East London article. This was because the article is too detailed for the main, general article. The notability of it (or the lack of it) as an institution/organisation separate from UEL did not arrive at consensus - it didn't need to. I don't understand the relevance of that discussion to this one though. Thryduulf (talk) 03:07, 5 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I was told that the UNI project's guidelines had no bearing on WP guidelines and, to paraphrase, "counted for nothing". Perhaps that was said on my talk page but I'm pretty sure it was in the AfD. In any event, that was the relevant point I was trying to make here: project guidelines are A Good Thing, but not The Thing. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Article has citations from WP:RSs and hence it meets WP:GNG. The claims above that it fails GNG have not been explained. In the absence of specific Irish cricket guidelines the English cricket guidelines are good enough to go on for now. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG says that "that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." so please point to the WP:RS that addresses the club directly and in detail. Mtking (talk) 21:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * ,, and . --Eamonnca1 (talk) 23:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Those are trivial and tangential references. They carry next to no weight. Arson, bar, potential loss of ground have little to do with cricket, which is the primary function of the article as I see it. - Sitush (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, I have appeared in newspapers more often than that. And I am definitely not deserving of a WP article because none of those appearances had any particular co-relation other than my name. - Sitush (talk) 00:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * They are not "trivial" or "tangential". How can you say it was a "tangential" reference to the club when the club is referenced in the articles' headlines? --Eamonnca1 (talk) 17:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Is it a club for training arsonists? Is it a world famous bar? No, it is a cricket club. The stories are tangential. People reading the article will 99.9% be after cricket information, not stuff about (an admittedly soul-destroying) arson attack. My rugby club's buildings have twice been burned down. There is no mention of the events in their article in WP. - Sitush (talk) 17:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * So the only RS that counts is one that overwhelmingly references the club's sporting activities? If that's the case then a few million citations will have to be deleted from wikipedia forthwith. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. You are confusing reliable sources with notability. - Sitush (talk) 20:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm confusing no such thing. Nice to know that you agree with me that the club's sporting activities don't have to be the primary focus of the cited articles though. --Eamonnca1 (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - WikiProject Cricket has devised notability guidelines. For clubs, while there is no specific guideline for Irish cricket, there is for English cricket. The guideline for English cricket is that any club that belongs to "one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues is notable. In other words, clubs belonging to senior provincial leagues are notable. The provincial leagues in Ireland are the equivalent of these leagues in England and, therefore, clubs belonging to those leagues meet the notability guidelines. Mooretwin (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry but Irish cricket and English cricket are not comparable, it would be like saying the Baseball guidelines for the US should be applied in Australia, the guidelines work only for the explicit League they are designed for. Mtking (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That may be your inadequately-informed opinion, but Irish club cricket is comparable to English club cricket at provincial level. In fact, it is arguably of a superior standard, given that ODI international players are selected from Irish provincial leagues, and Irish clubs attract overseas Test cricketers as club professionals. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Mooretwin, please provide some evidence from reliable sources that the two are comparable. Does Wisden cover this? (I suspect not, but just asking). How many of the clubs playing in Burndennett's exact division of the exact league have professional players? Who are they? Why are they not in the articles? How many ODI players have come from the division, while playing in that division? I know next to nothing about cricket. I do not need to. The burden of proof is not on me. Please remember also that notability is not inherited, and that Wikipedia project guidelines do not usurp the main guidelines. Therefore, although I refer to the division of the league above, it probably really needs to be drilled down to the club itself. This article simply does not demonstrate the notability of its subject, and that is the issue here. If notability can be proven then all is fine and good. I did say somewhere that people would most likely "pile on" here. Piling on is an unfortunate tendency. You have to take a neutral view. As I have no involvement in cricket, am not from Ireland, and so on, my only concern is WP:N. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Does Wisden cover this? No, and neither does it cover English provincial leagues - so coverage in Wisden does not support your false claim that English provincial club cricket is superior to Irish provincial club cricket. Mooretwin (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears that Wisden does cover some Irish competitions, but presumably not this one. The information has been provided in the Cricket project discussion referred to below. - Sitush (talk) 12:34, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It does cover the North West Senior League, I'm afraid. It appears not, however, to cover the ECB Leagues in England, therefore Wisden considers Irish senior leagues to be more notable than those leagues, and therefore by the standard of the WP guidelines, Irish senior cricket clubs are notable. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm going to bite with my last ever edit on Wiki. Off the top of the head without a google search (which seems to be all the deletionists rely on - the Irish press and cricket press cover it adequately) the folowing players are just a sample of the pros who have played in NWCU. Shahzad Butt and Salman Butt (Drummond) inluding timie in Section 2, Kapil Dev (Limavady), Shoaib Akhtar (Strabane), Kamran Akmal (Limavady), Raman Lamba (Ardmore), Akram Raza (Brigade), Kiran More (Coleraine) when playing in NW Section 2, Ata Rehman (Brigade), Surinder Amarnath (Eglinton), Ridley Jacobs (Eglinton), Heath Davis (Eglinton), W Wasti (Brigade) (cant remember the spelling of first name sorry), Hasan Raza (Glendermott), M. V. Narasimha (known in Ireland as Bobby) Rao MBE (Strabane, Sion Mills & Eglinton), Adnan Akmal (Limavady), Umar Akmal (can’t remember exact club) plus many others in their 100+ years of existence. Promotion & relegation operates between the two leagues and Section 2 currentl has Sion Mills in it for instance - one of the oldest and most successful Irish clubs (numerous Irish internationals Colhoun, Harpur, Rao and several others) - by your reckoning they are unworthy despite their past successes. I believe the Cooke brothers started out at Burndennett (and can be sourced) etc etc. I work for a living - not being a tax dodger with unlimited time to add endless material to wiki and seek out conflict. Workers like me only have a limited time to edit - content takes time to source and include. Please learn something about the subject matter before dismissing the significance of a league. Bye and good luck to all.Weejack48 (talk) 08:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: It might be worth people asking the opinions of the members of WP:CRIC at the projects talkpage. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:12, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I took up the suggestion of AssociateAffiliate, after leaving it for a while in the hope that those seeking to avoid this article being deleted might do so in order to bolster their position. I was surprised that they did not, since there is an entire project out there involving people whom, I would presume, have an interest in developing cricket-based articles on Wikipedia. The result can be see at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Cricket. I do appreciate that I am posting this fairly soon after I raised the issue there but, so far, the consensus appears to be that there is no inherent notability for any club involved at the level which Burndennett play, contrary to the stock response which has been provided by Mooretwin above. "Stock response", because the exact same comment has been used elsewhere. - Sitush (talk) 23:24, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: the changes to the guideline - at your prompting and designed specifically to exclude Irish clubs - were based on fallatious reasoning, as I have noted on the relevant talk page. Mooretwin (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment: my question was not designed to exclude anything. It asked a question, in as neutral a tone as I could manage given that the issue cropped up in an AfD in the first place. As it happened, other people whom I presume to be far more knowledgeable about cricket than me, responded and so far appear to be of the opinion that no club in Section 2 is inherently notable as a consequence of their being in that section. The consensus in the discussion at CRIC appears to be that those in the top tier might be inherently notable, and that those interested in cricket in "minor" participating nations might want to assist the project in drawing up suitable guidelines for the future relating to those nations. I apologise for using the word "minor", which is not intended to be offensive - I just don't know the correct term. How much weight is placed on what a project thinks is another matter. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As already pointed out, the reasoning behind the comments of two editors was fallatious, as I have explained on the relevant talk page. Sitush's confession of ignorance about cricket is relevant here. Mooretwin (talk) 23:02, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 17:36, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * ... or it could be that the fact that I have little knowledge of cricket, and am also not (knowingly) of Irish origin, means that I have no particular axe to grind? I am as near to neutral as could be. Although I will admit to having partaken in a couple of wonderful walking/camping holidays in Ireland & met many wonderfully hospitable locals over those combined 5 or 6 weeks. So perhaps I am biased, after all.


 * I don't like the personalising of this discussion. I am genuinely trying to approach this in a neutral manner. If the sources are there to prove notability, and if those sources arise as a consequence of nominating this article, then AfD has done its job. This is not a war & AfD does not always have negative connotations. One of my own GAs was an AfD rescue. Since raising this AfD some sources have appeared in the Burndennett article, and this is A Good Thing. Happen I have doubts that they are sufficient, but kudos to those who found them and have taken note of the issues. One of them has contributed to this discussion, which is fine. - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If it's not a war, you should stop edit-warring at the cricket project page - trying to enforce a change to the guidelines that you imposed yourself, for the purposes of supporting a campaign to delete Irish cricket articles. Mooretwin (talk) 08:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but where have I edit warred? I cannot recall changing any statement made by anyone else there. Please, try to maintain a sense of proportion here: you are throwing accusations around against people without, it seems, much thought. I note that there are others involved in that discussion aside from me, and that you could have started that discussion as suggested by AssociateAffiliate above. Why you chose not to is not my concern. - Sitush (talk) 08:17, 13 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete For the same reasons as Articles for deletion/Clogher Cricket Club this club is not playing at a level comparable to the ECB Premier Leagues and other than coverage of a new road and a fire nothing covering the cricket exploits of this club would appear to exist. VER  Tott  10:33, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
 * What coverage do you find of teams in the Lincolnshire League? Mooretwin (talk) 08:24, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE. And your point is? - Sitush (talk) 08:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I should have thought that the point was rather obvious. The WP guidelines accept the notability of clubs in E&W for which there is little non-local coverage on the basis of the league to which they are affiliated. Applying this same standard to clubs in Ireland means that this club, and others, should also be accepted as notable. Thanks. Mooretwin (talk) 12:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - the coverage is of specific events so does not cover the club as a whole. Does not meet WP:GNG. TerriersFan (talk) 18:07, 20 June 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.