Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/East Doncaster 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. Dakota 00:31, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

East Doncaster Cricket Club
Well, if Wiki adminers have determined precedent for like sporting clubs, any retort I can offer appears to be a waste of time. However, a couple for your consideration...

Links to the area (Doncaster or East Doncaster) discuss schools, community groups & sporting clubs based throughout the area. Is it not logical for these clubs to then have a wiki presence??

The club has a significant history in the area, which has been documented extensively, and is currently being prepared for release in book format.

The club effects hundreds of individuals & families on a weekly basis.

I don't see the point in ignoring sporting associations that play a prominent part in a local community, and limiting a wiki presence to those that reach a specific "grade". It's easy to state that a club is "Not notable", but by whose reckoning does this apply??

Other than following wiki guideliness that have already been established, I don't think the arguments noted for deletion so far, are at all contructive. Kind regards, Heater


 * This cricket club in is not notable - it is not even at the standard of the Melbourne grade cricket, which is one level below first-class cricket, but is only a team which competes in a lower level in the eastern subregion of Melbourne. It is just a weekend sport club. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 23:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete article fails to state notability. Cbrown1023 00:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a guideline for this? Fouded in 1886 is a bit of a claim to notability, but only four articles on Newsbank in 120 years (3 local) isn't that impressive. Provisional delete. ~ trialsanderrors 01:41, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Living a hundred year old home doesn't make the home notable. Why would it for anything else? Arbusto 04:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -- Kf4bdy talk contribs 07:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: Many non-league English football clubs are as old this one, and we're agreed that they're not notable. -- Bpmullins 14:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No evidence of notability such as participation in main Melbourne grade cricket competition or state/Australian players. May be worth a brief mention in the East Doncaster article. Capitalistroadster 01:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions.   -- Capitalistroadster 01:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete sad but true, not notable †he Bread  23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete sad but true, not notable †he Bread  23:17, 7 November 2006 (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.