Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hertford 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   keep. The consensus is to keep, especially as the nominator withdrew their nomination --  Phantom Steve / talk &#124; contribs \ 05:37, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hertford Cricket Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Amateur cricket club which appears to fail CRIN. Note this is apparently not the same club as Hertfordshire County Cricket Club -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as no notability asserted; will be blocking author for username violation. Daniel Case (talk) 14:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It should meet CRIN as they are in one of the ECB Premier Leagues (the Home Counties Premier Cricket League) having been promoted there at the end of last season and should therefore now be listed on List of English cricket clubs.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:50, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete Amateur club with no particular notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Here's what has happened so far. A person has come to Wikipedia to create an article on a topic close to their heart. The article is not terribly spammy, is definitely not a CSD candidate and is at least sourced, even if the source is not ideal. Our response to this as a project is to immediately nominate the article for deletion and as a double whammy, block the creator on a technical (and esoteric to the newbie editor) breach of the username policy - preventing him/her from contributing to the AfD or fixing the article! The editor proposes a new name and even though it meets WP:UNAME, we decline to accept it in good faith and so allow the editor to contribute to discussion here. What a welcome to the project for a new editor! The subject may indeed be non-notable (If it does play in the Home Counties Premier Cricket League however, it would meet WP:CRIN) but does anyone actually think what has happened here is a good outcome? -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Whilst I disagree with the way the user's block has been handled, I don't think it can be regarded as inappropriate for someone unfamiliar with cricket to have started this AfD. The article was unsourced when nominated and technically does not meet WP:CRIN as Hertford has not been added to List of English cricket clubs yet as the ECB have not updated their website with the league entrants for next season. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I should clarify, I don't think anyone has acted in bad faith. Everyone has acted in accordance with policy. It is just unfortunate that no one seemed to give any consideration to how this all looks from the new editor's point of view. My criticism is more of the process than the editors here. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I may well have misread this - but it did look to me as if a purely recreational club was creating an article about itself. I do regret the way circumstances have come together to result in an overall response that does appear a bit bitey. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Hertford Cricket Club meets WP:CRIN criteria as it is an ECB Premier League club. This therefore makes it a notable recreational club within the remit of WP:CRIC. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I completely agree with Mattinbgn on the conduct in which this AfD has been carried out. I would say it is not in good faith and certainly the opposite of WP:DONTBITE.  To block a newbie editor on a technicality for which it is obvious they would not be aware really doesn't show this project in good faith.  The whole conduct in which this has been carried out seems in bad faith: nothing scares potentially valuable contributors away faster than hostility. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Associate Affiliate. The assertion by the nominator here is clearly false as, the club does meet WP:CRIN by playing in one of the ECB Premier Leagues in this case the Home Counties Premier Cricket League. It appears that good faith has not really been shown here, over what, in reality, amounts to a very inconsequential article in the grands scheme of things.&mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 22:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can't find this club mentioned on the Home Counties League website although my unfamiliarity with the structure of English cricket means I may be looking in the wrong spot. That is why I haven't given my opinion as "keep" just yet. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 02:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think they have been promoted to compete in the 2011 season. The League site hasn't been updated yet.&mdash;User:MDCollins (talk) 11:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When I nominated the article (and I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed to be accused of bad faith, especially after the 27,000+ contributions I've made to this project), I could not find evidence to support notability under WP:CRIN - and the article itself provided none at the time. As a source has now been added, I shall change my position to "Keep/Withdraw". -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Another comment Whilst I largely agree with the 'keep' comments so far, I haven't thrown my hat into the ring yet as I haven't been able to find significant coverage in any sources. Does anyone have further sources to add? Meeting WP:CRIN in the absence of any significant coverage in secondary sources might not be sufficient. --Pontificalibus (talk) 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep  Aaroncrick  TALK 09:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/Withdraw, now that a source has been added to attest to notability (Only a self-published source exists so far - I can still see no third party confirmation - but I think it's probably reliable enough to keep the article). -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - Boing! said Zebedee, I think the issue here is more of the treatment of the newbie, who has been blocked for a technicality they would not be aware of, when they provided an alternative name this was ignored and ban upheld. I CSD and AfD things, which is to be expected of the project in regards to notability, that is not the issue.  The manner in which the newbie appears to have been bashed is. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's a fair point, and I think declining the unblock was a mistake (and I do feel quite bad about having started the whole thing). But I honestly think it's a combination of misjudgments (including mine) rather than bad faith on anyone's part. Best regards -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 7 December 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.