Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pyrford Cricket Club


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 23:50, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Pyrford Cricket Club

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

Village cricket club which fails cricket notability guidelines of having played in the Premier Division of one of the ECB Premier Leagues. Also fails WP:GNG of "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Prod was contested. Jpeeling (talk) 17:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Restating the points I made on the talk page:


 * Cricket notablity guidelines state that the "Premier Division" guideline is just that, a guideline rather than a hard and fast rule. This side is notable for a) it's ground, b) it's long history and c) the renown of it's past players: Taibu, Butcher and - from a non cricket playing perspective - Colvile.


 * There seems to be some agressive deleting of worthwhile articals on Wikipedia at present. We need to get away from this...


 * I would humbly suggest that a more worthwhile use of Jpeeling's time would be editing/creating or improving articals rather than proposing deletions.


 * Boatrace 16/3/09 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boatrace (talk • contribs) 18:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with the points you make: a) I don't see what's particularly notable with regards the ground and that shouldn't have an impact on the notability of the club anyway. They are independent entities. Also the paragraph dealing with the ground is unsourced so shouldn't be the considered in a decision over notability. b) The history of a club is a fair point, but it should be for the events in that history not the mere length of it. 150 years isn't particularly long in cricketing terms, sticking just to the county of Surrey, Mitcham Cricket Club, Godalming Cricket Club, East Molesey Cricket Club and Chertsey Cricket Club all date back to the 18th century. c) Just as notability for players can't be gained by being associated with a notable club, the reverse should also be true. A club can't gain notability just because a notable player(s) played for them. They should gain it in their own right.

Finally if you wish to discuss my edits may I suggest my talkpage not here. --Jpeeling (talk) 19:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - as JPeeling said, a few notable players does not make a notable club. Not enough reliable external sources.&mdash;MDCollins (talk) 11:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.158.212 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  —94.196.158.212 (talk) 10:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete -- merely a village cricket team. A few village teams may be notable, but I dount this one is.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. There generally needs to be an exceptional claim to notability for an amateur sports club to qualify. This isn't one of them. There's no reason why the club couldn't get a mention on the biographies of the notable players though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:47, 24 March 2009 (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.