Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humberside Alliance cricket 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 delete. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:51, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Humberside Alliance cricket league

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable low-level (defunct) local amateur cricket competition. No sources likely to exist outside primary sources and routine results coverage in local press. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:01, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I find this incredibly childish and ridiculous

I have posted and edited all of the lincolnshire cricket pages for the last 5 years and because I ask someone not to delete the batting and bowling awards sections on the Lincolnshire premier league page he has now tagged all of my pages for deletion.

For starters its ridiculous that an "editor" can act this childish and I ask him to be immediately removed and banned from wikipedia for blatant abuse of position.

Our work is to find historical information on cricket in lincolnshire and post it up on wikipedia for all to seem. We have a society that sits monthly and have backing from Lincs Cricket, the ECB and have help from webistes such as Cricket Archive, north lincs Library, Gimsby Library and Doncaster library. We have been doing this for several years and Ive never had a single complaint about what I was doing.

This is hundreds of hours of work that is being vandalised by an idiot.

I not only expect this to be removed immediately, but I expect an apology aswell. CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 11:16, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I notice the idiot in question has used the argument that there are too many first hand sources. Ive answered this question before in that all of the cricket pages I publish doesnt have internet sources, its the whole reason why we are trying to put them on wikipedia!!!!!! The sources are the books, newspaper articles and anecdotal evidence I have in front of me and I cite this when I post them

Im also a editor and admin for Play cricket and when informtaition is put on there (Which it has for most of these pages, I reference them to that.

I really dont know what else to say on the matter, I am so annoyed with thisCreamyGoodne55 (talk) 11:23, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you make more personal attacks, you will be blocked. 331dot (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I will further add that if a subject does not have significant coverage in independent reliable sources(I don't know if that is the case here or not), it cannot be on Wikipedia. Sources do not need to be online, but they do need to be published and accessible to the public.  You cannot use Wikipedia as a web host for your information. 331dot (talk) 11:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * So its been fine for 5 years for my pages to be on wikipedia but now one person is annoyed at me because I asked him not to adit out a table I was working on they have to all be deleted?
 * This is targetted harrasment, Might be time for a harrasmnet and bullying report to go in. CreamyGoodne55 (talk) 11:29, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * I am not 123dot. They are not "your pages"; they belong to the community, which you are told with every edit you make.  The fact that they have existed for five years is completely irrelevant.  You need to stop the personal attacks, calm down, and make a logical case preferably based in Wikipedia guidelines as to why the articles you wrote should remain. 331dot (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Apologies for tagging your username wrong. I am not saying they are MY pages, but I published them and the only pople that have edited them up to today is myself and the other people I am working with. The only reason the user in question has even gone on the page is becuase hes targetting everything Ive published this year. And this is why I made the point about length of serivce. Ive been doing this for years and only one person has had an issue and that was with citing references with a book (I openly admnit I am a begining in that regard) and we resolved this. But now Im led to believe that I have to defence the articles I published and it has nothing to do with a user targetting me and my articles?
 * Users are allowed to notice edits or articles and take action regarding them if they are acting in good faith. This is a completely normal thing in Wikipedia. If you have evidence of any malicious intent(which is not just the mere fact someone noticed your edits and took action) or bad faith, please offer it. I don't see any here- so I suggest that you focus on the specific concerns given by the person who started this discussion. 331dot (talk) 11:46, 17 September 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per nomination. A cornerstone of Wikipedia is that pages must be verifiable, meaning that they have garnered coverage in independent sources which are independent of the subject; and that this coverage could be described as significant. There's no evidence that this organisation has attained either of these things. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete - clearly fails WP:GNG due to lack of reliable sources covering the subject in depth Spiderone  16:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable local cricket league. Only sources listed are from the organisation themselves (play-cricket is a UGC site where teams / leagues manage information about themselves, which the page creator admits to being a contributor to). Spike &#39;em (talk) 09:42, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable local league that fails SIGCOV and it seems like the person who created is connected to it or the website he is using as sources somehow. Which is a clear COI. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:07, 19 September 2020 (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.