Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westbury 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   keep. Mkativerata (talk) 08:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Westbury Cricket Club

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Though this in theory passes the WP:CRIC inclusion guidelines, it fails the more widely accepted guidelines of WP:GNG and WP:CLUB and should be deleted. Mt king  (edits)  00:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  Mt  king  (edits)  00:10, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Per nominator. --Noleander (talk) 01:33, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Lazy nomination. A much more productive manner of dealing with this article would be to merge to the parent article&mdash;Westbury Cricket Club&mdash;until sources can be found, but given the nominator's history in attempting to cull cricket team articles (why cricket teams, of all things?) that would not appear to be on his/her agenda. The club is at least as notable as LIME Sports Club and Boys' Town Cricket Club and a range of other cricket team articles developed recently that the nominator has earlier argued were unlikely to be notable. If someone was willing to put the time in, there is no doubt sources would be found. Cricket is the national sport of Australia and clubs like Westbury who play at the highest possible level of club cricket in the country are notable. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a Lazy nomination as firstly a merge is not an option as nothing is sourced, secondly nothing is inherently notable. Mt  king  (edits)  09:40, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep but get someone who knows something about Grade cricket in Australia to do a major reworking of the article, expanding it and introducing references. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 11:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  —Jenks24 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. For historical Australian topics, it's often a good idea to search Trove, the National Library of Australia's online database. In this case, a search for "Westbury Cricket Club" gives me pages of newspaper articles from The Examiner and The Mercury, the two major Tasmanian newspapers. The first five results are easily enough to demonstrate the significant coverage that's required to pass GNG (see, , , , and there's plenty more than that). Jenks24 (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * They are local papers and do not represent significant coverage of the clubs activities. Mt  king  (edits)  21:36, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Next you'll be saying that The New York Times can't be used to prove significant coverage for any subject from New York. They are not "local" – they are the two major Tasmanian papers. By circulation, The Mercury is the 11th biggest newspaper in Australia and The Examiner is the 14th. Jenks24 (talk) 21:53, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No, but local papers tend to report on the more trivial aspects of local life, like the fact that "Mr Ri V. Marris presided at the annual meeting of - the Westbury Cricket Club on Monday", for example or that "A CREDIT balance of £8 6s 7d was disclosed at the annual meeting of the Westbury Cricket Club". Are you really saying that the The New York Times would cover the AGM of a local minor league baseball club ?  Mt  king  (edits)  22:30, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * What I'm saying is that both those papers are not trivial and local, but serious, respectable and read by tens of thousands each day. The two quotes that you have cherry-picked are simply how articles were written at the time. Newspaper articles in The Age from that time period about, say, the Melbourne Cricket Club are much the same. To your specific question, I know little about baseball terms, but I don't think "a local minor league baseball club" is the equivalent of an Australian grade cricket team, considering grade cricket is effectively the second tier of Australian cricket, behind the six first-class sides. That said, I think that if one searched through the NYT archives, it would be easy to find coverage of notable sports teams' AGMs in the early 1900s. Jenks24 (talk) 22:44, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not cherry pick, I picked links 1 & 3, I could have picked link 2 "This club has during the past season played nine matches, of which six were won and three lost" or link 4 "A meeting of the committee of the Westbury Cricket Club took place in the reading-room on Saturday evening." or link 5 "A SPECIAL meeting of the Westbury Cricket Club was held at Mr. R. Ingamell's, and was well attended by members of the women's committee and players." to say that these are significant coverage is stretching it. Mt  king  (edits)  02:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean you cherry-picked the articles, but the quotes to show the articles in a negative light. Anyway, as I said earlier, that style of journalism is a hallmark of the early 1900s and how that makes the coverage insignificant, I'll never understand. Take link 2, a major newspaper has devoted an entire article to summarising the team's season – that's significant coverage in anyone's book. Also, we seem to be quibbling over these five. They were just random examples, there are 200 more like them in the original link I gave. Jenks24 (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep/Delete. I believe that this article has the potential to become a bigger article. It is important to the world of sport and thus must be a reasonable article in the Wikipedia society. However, if this article is not improved soon, it will be immediately deleted. --12:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhain1999 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment – Article deletion or inclusion is based upon the availability of reliable sources, not the state of references within articles. Please refer to WP:BEFORE requirements for more information. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep – Per available reliable sources that establish notability of the topic. See external links section of article for some of them. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:50, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment – See also, more digitized newspaper articles. Northamerica1000 (talk) 06:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unless you can say which one gives the significant coverage then your !vote will be disregarded by the closing admin. Mt  king  (edits)  07:49, 21 September 2011 (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.