Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plank cricket


 * 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 of the debate was Delete, discounting socks, meats, etc. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:58, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Plank cricket
A game that google doesn't know. Cites three web references; one page doesn't respond, another mentions neither "plank" nor "cricket" (and is autogenerated bollocks anyway), and the third contains a random juxtaposition of "plank" and "cricket". WP:NFT. Weregerbil 11:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * KEEP the games plank cricket is a creation for playing cricket in schools. it is also a way in which to build foundations for a well nit community. plank cricket is so popular because it does not require any type of sparts equipment.


 * Delete - this type of cricket is adequately covered by Beach cricket and the article adds no further elucidation. Peripitus 11:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This is a game that is played informally so it does exist. Its only the discussion thats made up but it is a game that is played in schools at lunchtime etc so only the discussion appears to be incorrect from what i have read — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.110.217.131 (talk • contribs) 13:04, May 10, 2006
 * So in other words, it's a) not notable, and b) not verifiable. Kill it. Kill it stone dead. - Ta bu shi da yu 13:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is not something made up in school, this is something played in schools. It seems to me that a game of this nature is going to have a hard time asserting notability by the google criteria because the practitioners are 10 year olds busy playing sport, not writing blogs . This article seems worthy of inclusion to me, and seems quite different from beach cricket and French cricket. Perhaps an all-round 'cricket variants' article would suffice, but I discern sufficient points of difference to suggest that the different articles should be retained. IMO, of course. Colon el  Tom 13:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * This is something said to be played in schools. Notability isn't an issue; the question is verifiability, which is far more important.  &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Marge and Redirect to Street cricket of which this is a variant. Marge the small amount of useful information into a paragraph in the "Variants/derivatives" section there. Gw e rnol 13:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: I have attempted to check the URLs given for references: one was non-functional, one was simply a page filled with garbage, and one was a totally irrelevant news story, thus confirming nominator's point, so I have removed them all, leaving the article without any supporting references. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep it sounds like Stickball but for cricket instead of baseball. I'm going to also go out on a limb and assume that people really do play this.  Tag it unreferenced and wait 2 weeks is my medicine. Kotepho 13:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * m/r to Beach cricket seems decent too. Kotepho 13:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If it ain't verifiable, it ain't Wikipediable.  Fails WP:V, WP:NFT.  RGTraynor 14:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep What a game! I didnt realise it actually had rules it is basically played as the article says but we use stumps drawn on walls. You can't delete it not a lot of people have access to cricket pitches because they are sealed off so this is the next best thing. We play in at luchtime everyone joins in mostly as fieldersc because there is only one batter and bowler at a time! Plank Cricket Forever yeah.!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.159.96.166 (talk • contribs).
 * Comment Oh, goody. Meatsocks. Colon el Tom 14:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of WP:V sourcing. Willing to reconsider if someone can source this.--Isotope23 14:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - there is unlikely going to be any source as this is a school yard game, not something that is likely to be written about. at the max I would say merge it with street cricket. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.44.21.186 (talk • contribs).


 * Delete, if there aren't any sources then we don't write about it, period. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 15:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - And ignore all of these anons saying that verifiable sourcing doesn't matter, because it most certainly does. -- Cyde Weys  16:00, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't think Tag (game) or Bullshit (game) would have a source, but they did. Unsourced is not a reason for deletion, but being unverifiable is.  You cannot know if something is unverifiable unless you try (hint, google isn't a good idea). Kotepho 16:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC) (Apparently, after the AN thread people didn't actually put the sources in the articles, groan.)


 * Keep - This is a genuine article. Poor kids in cities don't have access to proper cricket, and this is the only way they learn - therefore the content of the article is important. Plank cricket is not written about on the internet because deprived 10-year-olds don't 'blog' about it, and probably don't even have the internet. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist - it matters hugely to a lot of people, and plays an important part in the development of cricketing skills. If the general feeling is that a separate article is too much, then it should be merged with street cricket, but certainly not deleted, as the information is 100% correct, and it is a well-written piece. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.135.11.121 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete - in rush of meat puppets tell you all you need to know. -- GWO
 * Keep - I am relatively new to Wikipedia, but the article is 100% genuine. Perhaps it could be merged with Street Cricket, but I feel the nature of the game warrants an article of its own. User:Hard2Explain
 * Delete: no sources mean it has to go. If we start including unsourced content, we should change our name to Jimbos Big Bucket of Trivia. Oh, and please ignore the sock puppets. --Hetar 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources have been been added to the article which verify the existence of plank cricket. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.93.21.4 (talk • contribs).
 * It looks like it was only one source, and unfortunately, it fails WP:RS - so it won't be of any use for saving the article. --Hetar 21:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. If it were verifiable, it could be merged with beach cricket which apparently covers backyard cricket and gully cricket as informal types of cricket. This is unverifiable via Google see and seems not to have spread much past the school mentioned in the article. Wikipedia should only publish information that has been verified by other sources. Capitalistroadster 23:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete unless someone can find a reputable source. -- E ivindt@c 00:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Fork/unverifiable. ReeseM 03:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:V. Stifle (talk) 12:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. Just zis Guy you know? 12:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The article now has a reference - therefore it should be kept, or pehaps merged.
 * Someone sticking a mention in his personal blog is a "reference?" Could we see something from a reputable source, please?  RGTraynor 16:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes - as mentioned earlier, the very nature of the game means that it's hard to see a 'reputable source' writing about the game. That doesn't mean it doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.135.11.121 (talk • contribs) 18:06, May 11, 2006

KEEP This game is played by citizens, normal children in the street or the playground so please explain why everybody is expecting a source from a professional website. If it is played by school children then how is a website written by a school child not a reputable source. Older generations do not play plank cricket so why would their be referneces on a professional website. A personal website is sufficient! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.156.162.143 (talk • contribs) 19:14, May 11, 2006
 * Delete - Neologism, not notable. Whack it.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 18:20, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge and Redirect Can I do the honors? Xaxafrad 05:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable. Runcorn 20:07, 15 May 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.