Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crickfacts


 * 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. Carlossuarez46 18:54, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Crickfacts

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website. The authors oppose the speedy deletion. Mushroom (Talk) 18:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete A7 nonetheless, so tagged. Non-notable website. Ten Pound Hammer  • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete unless sources are found to get it past WP:WEB Corpx 22:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom (unless reliable sources establish notability). -- B figura (talk) 22:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent sources. Hal peridol 22:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Gatoclass 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Freewebs hosted site, no evidence whatsoever of notability. Iain99 23:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable website, no independent sources - and possible COI issues as well. Nigel Ish 23:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep' DO NOT DELETE - Need to given a chance. Has good information. Most likely cant afford a .com domain. Great Website 125.237.230.7 07:45, 7 September 2007 (UTC) — 125.237.230.7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy delete obscure website. (I'm a member of WP:CRICKET and I've never heard of it before this debate). Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions.   —Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Creator has been directed to the notability guidelines but has been unable to add any sources that would show how this podcast meets that guideline; conflict of interest issues are secondary to the non-notability. -FisherQueen (Talk) 10:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable. When I looked at the site's main page yesterday, its news on the Indian tour was several weeks out of date. JH (talk page) 16:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't even really make an attempt at notability let alone prove anything. (As with Stephen Turner, as a member of WP:CRICKET, I'd not once heard of it until this.) Likely WP:COI at play, too. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 20:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy close per everyone, has not been notable as in worthy of attracting notice.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 22:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Is not in violation of COI, just provides background to the site. Has a small but loyal community.--Realityisboring 02:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC) — Realityisboring (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * 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.