Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket Coach

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. SushiGeek 08:43, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cricket Coach

ATTENTION! If you came to this page because a friend asked you to do so, or because you saw a message on an online forum asking you to do so, please note that this is not a vote on whether or not this article is to be deleted. It is not true that everyone who shows up to a deletion discussion gets an automatic vote just for showing up. The deletion process is designed to determine the consensus of opinion of Wikipedia editors; for this reason comments from users whose histories do not show experience with or contributions to Wikipedia are traditionally given less weight and may be discounted entirely. You are not barred from participating in the discussion, no matter how new you may be, and we welcome reasoned opinions and rational discussion based upon our policies and guidelines. However, ballot stuffing is pointless. There is no ballot to stuff. This is not a vote, and decisions are not made upon weight of numbers alone. Please review Wikipedia:Deletion policy for more information.

Supposedly some really terrible game. There are no links to professional reviews. There was previously a link to a forum thread, which of course isn't exactly a reliable source in proving this game to be notorious for poor quality. I'm sure this is the next worst thing since Big Rigs, but there needs to be proof. And who's to say they won't release a patch to fix issues? It has been out for less than a week. Drat (Talk) 14:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Note to closing admin: Please examine the contributions histories of unknown participants, in particular IP addresses.

• Strong keep Its a sequel to Cricket Manager, a highly notable game. Just because the quality may not be good has nothing to do with it's reliability. As far as reviews go: it's a sim game. Those tend to have less reviews, and more website reviews like wargamer.com or it's equivalent for sports games. ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
• Strong keep Give people a chance to add more info? Give a chance for reviews to come out? Really no need to be such a fussy busybody, who is this article hurting? Let things evolve for once you pompous ogre —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.164.26 (talk • contribs).
• Strong keep No harm being done here, shirley? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.17.114.71 (talk • contribs).
• Comment - How on earth can a game be put on List of video games considered the worst ever 4 days after release is beyond me. I'm removing it from that list. - Hahnchen 18:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong keep look its so unfeasibly bad its actually brilliant and i cant see why "proof" or "professional reviews" is needed when clearly everyone who has played it so far agrees and the person who has raised this complaint clearly has never seen it cause they are too busy hunting round wiki for things he can try and get deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.107.11.107 (talk • contribs).

• delete if no reviews can back this up wikipedia is not for random heresay. if someone can find a link to reviews that say it is a Notably bad game then i may change my vote El cid the hero 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment For a wikipedia user you have terrible grammar and punctuation - especially if you want your opinion to be taken seriously. May I suggest to the powers-that-be that this vote and any further votes from El cid be stricken from the record as he's clearly too mentally naive to take part in grown up debates.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.178.202.158 (talk • contribs). Strike, personal attack. --kingboyk 02:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as you seem to be new here I will give you a few pointers on getting started. 1) You have only contributed twice on your IP address, and on the second occasion you only corrected your previous comment. Unless you create your own username, and increase your number of contributions to Wikipedia, many users will not consider your views to be of a high value. 2) Wikipedia is not a battle ground so please don’t insult other users who hold a different opinion to yours. 3) This page has a lot of useful information about Wikipedia and reading it might aid you in becoming an editor.
• Delete Quality or whether you like the game matter not a jot. It's newly released and defaults to non notable, unless some evidence is provided to the contrary. --kingboyk 02:34, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per all above keeps. Royboycrashfan 02:46, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep per all keeps. --Terence Ong 05:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment err....I'm confused. Can we get some comments for concensus? T K E 06:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The article does not link to any independent sources, whether professional or not, that confirm that the game had any or all of the flaws described. If sources are added to the article, I may reconsider this vote. --Metropolitan90 16:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Comment : The screenshot shows Ed Smith with 115 off 68 deliveries. I don't know how that could be anything other than a bug. -- GWO
• Delete unless properly sourced. Otherwise, it just looks like a hatchet job. Reinstate if the software ever gets a proper release. --- GWO
• Delete unless rewritten with verifiable information from reliable sources. -- Saberwyn 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless cleaned up with more information about notability and sources cited. The current page is not a lot more than an attack page. Stifle (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
• Cleanup and Keep. --Haham hanuka 08:18, 12 April 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.