Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PlanetCricket


 * 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 as no reliable outside sources have been provided to verify the claim to notablity. And the onus for that is certainly on the editors. ~ trialsanderrors 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

PlanetCricket


Non notable website about cricket. Claims in article very misleading Leg before Wiki 22:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont think you can claim this website is not a notible website about cricket gaming. It is the only active website which is updated regually about cricket games. Which claims are miss leading? Boulet 22:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand. The onus is not on me to prove that this article should be deleted. It is upon you to prove that it should be kept. Leg before Wiki 22:50, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The onus is surely on you to explain which claims are misleading? You are of course welcome to clean up the article and remove these claims. You claim it should be deleted as it is not a notible cricket website but it is a notible cricket gaming website wouldn't you agree? Many cricket games have their own articles and mention most of the playabilty and lastivity of these games come from community made patches. These patches exclusivly come from PlanetCricket and this has been mentioned in several articles.Boulet 22:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If the onus is on me, why are you trying to justify the article's existence? You would better serve wikipedia by trying to cleanup articles that are in need of it. I know you as a person, I know that you're a sockpuppet of the creator, and I'm sure that many other mysterious users will appear on this page before long. You disgust me. Leg before Wiki 23:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The onus is on you to link to the notability criteria that you employed, and to explain how this web site fails to satisfy them. The onus is also on you to refrain from introducing ad hominem points into the discussion and to remain focussed upon the article. Uncle G 01:38, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup. Remove the misleading claims (fastest growning, popular etc) and keep it as the facts, then we should be fine. Mangecourt 23:04, 20 November, 2006 (UTC) — Mangecourt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. I'm sorry, but this seems more like a commercial than a encyclopedia article. --DixiePixie 23:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. I have attempted to clean up the article and I disagree with DixiePixie about it being a commercial as it contains information and cricket games patches which are vital to the playablity of the games (have you even played any?? Try EA's games and you will know what I mean). It also has information about a new community cricket game which perhaps does not warrent its only article as yet but at a later date could be split off from the PlanetCricket article. Boulet 23:13, 20 November 2006 (UTC) — Boulet (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete (if it wasn't obvious). Leg before Wiki 23:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. PlanetCricket is an important Cricket Gaming website and my idea is that after the article is cleaned up further, there will be no need for a deletion. Duffarama 10:45, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Leg before Wiki hasn't explained how this web site fails the relevant notability criteria, and you haven't explained how it passes. Please cite sources to demonstrate that the notability criteria are satisfied by this web site. Uncle G 11:05, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is a lot of us are very busy, and don't have time to waste finding thse sources (this is probably the reason that there's so much cruft on wikipedia, as anime fans and the like tend to be either teenagers or unemployed so can easily keep their crap on). Anyway, according to WP:WEB... Doesn't meet sections 1, 2, 3. Leg before Wiki 12:59, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that there are good reasons which show its important mentioned on the actual article e.g and the fact that the producer of EA's latest cricket game chose to do his only interview with the site. To be honest if Leg Before Wikie cant be bothered to research and find sources he shouldnt really be putting sites up for deletion. Boulet 15:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it's quite obvious from reading the artitcle. And I know exactly who you are and what you've done, it's only the fact that I can't prove it that's stopping me mentioning it. Leg before Wiki 15:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont really think that it is a valid reason for article deletion then? This seems to be a personal vendetta of some sort against the person who you believe I am (whoever that maybe)!Boulet 15:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to be the pre-eminent cricket gaming site. I also quite like the name "Leg before Wiki", although the user's actions are curious to say the least. Dave 16:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete Many game fansites get given tickets to things, beta slots, and all that... in itself, it doesn't make a site notable. Nor does being a big site. I tried to find some magazine/newspaper items, but failed to find any. Given the number of links to this site, I don't want to totally dismiss the chance that there are some articles out there somewhere, hence being a weak delete. It'd be easy to change my mind with a few good references. Polenth 07:43, 26 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.