Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Island Cricket (2nd nomination)


 * 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure)  >SerialNumber  54129 ...speculates 11:45, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Island Cricket
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Almost all links are dead. Alexa Internet is not showing their rank 1. Very hard to pass WP:NWEB. Störm  (talk)  09:05, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:11, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! Baby miss  fortune 10:12, 26 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment . This is a difficult one to me to judge on this situation. This website is a popular cricket website in Sri Lanka and since the links are dead, the article is in a risk of deletion. Abishe (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * But to have article on Wikipedia you need sources, not popularity. Störm   (talk)  15:08, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Week keep Based on the claims of the site winning awards in different years.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:35, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * They have so low Alexa rank that Alexa doesn't show the rank. If claims are verified by WP:RS which is our core policy then I will happily vote keep. But without sources I will go with delete. Störm   (talk)  11:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Just a quick reminder that you've already !voted (as nominator) to delete the article. I've de-bolded your advocacy of "delete" in the above comment to avoid confusion. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:03, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Non notable, doesn't pass WP:NWEB completely. Articles are kept based on existence of, or proven evidence of sources not blind assumption. More popular and more authoritative website on Cricket, i.e Cricket Archive was recently deleted due to lack of sufficient sources not even lack of sources at all. To give rough comparison, CricketArchive was widely used across Wikipedia to support Cricket Articles (See How many times it's is cited on Wikipedia) and compare with (the Island Cricket's number) which doesn't even have secure website yet. Further, CA has far better Alexa rank than this one, and at least one academic sources (if I remember correctly) but all these didn't save it. Fancy website design cannot establish notability for this one also. I agree its homepage is well designed.–Ammarpad (talk) 07:55, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete not covered enough in independent sources to pass GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep article references 8 and 9 are reliable sources coverage in Asian Tribune and Ceylon News Today for a close pass of WP:GNG. Cricket Archive was a controversial close and could easily have been no consensus with more editors wanting to keep it rather than delete and is a candidate for a deletion review. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   12:29, 9 January 2018 (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.