Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monster Bat Incident 1771


 * 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.

Monster Bat Incident 1771
The result was Keep (non-admin closure), AfD withdrawn by nominator. No longer a copyvio problem. clpo13(talk) 07:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Apart from its markup, this is an exact copy of an article published in The Cricket Society Journal in 2006 and is probably a breach of copyright. Even if it does not breach copyright it should be completely rewritten in an objective and encyclopaedic style. But, as the original author seems to have left Wikipedia, it is doubtful if that will happen, so probably best to just delete it. JamesJJames (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as identified copyvio. Is the source online? --Dhartung | Talk 21:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as copyvio. From here.  So tagged.  --lifebaka (Talk - Contribs) 22:24, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Several pages link to it. I have replaced it by a stub with external link to http://www.jl.sl.btinternet.co.uk/stampsite/cricket/ladstolords/1771.html#monster . Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:36, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * keep re-write to stub addresses copyright violation and provides a suitable basis for writting a suitable article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BrucePodger (talk • contribs) 23:50, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - Copyvio not a problem now, and it is referenced, but I'm a bit worried about notability. At any rate, I'm giving the article the benefit of the doubt. --clpo13(talk) 06:06, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment by nominator. I think Anthony Appleyard has adopted the right approach.  I didn't realise the article was already on the web but I now see that the author of the Lads to Lord's site is the author of the original published article in the journal.  No need to worry about copyright.  I would now suggest that the article is kept as a stub.  It relates to an incident recounted in 1771 English cricket season that does have some importance as it caused a change in the rules (and that ruling is still current).  I'll expand it a bit to reflect that.  Thanks to all above for some very useful inputs.  --JamesJJames (talk) 06:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Withdraw nomination. I have expanded the new stub to capture the main points and cite the key source for the match result. I think this is now an acceptable article that should definitely be kept.  The impact of the incident on the Laws of cricket ensures WP:N.  --JamesJJames (talk) 07:12, 16 March 2008 (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.