Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Old Hill 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 of the debate was keep. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 00:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old_Hill_Cricket_Club

not encyclopedic Midgley 18:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC) x-D-e-l-e-t-e-x parochial and not notable. Merge into an article on amateur cricket clubs perhaps even ones in the midlands might be an alternative. Midgley 18:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. It's a club that has won the ECB National club competition four times, which isn't that parochial, and is somewhat notable. [1] Average Earthman 23:27, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
• Oh, and their ground is used by Worcestershire for some Second XI matches each season, so it's not that bad a ground. Eric Hollies used to play for them as well. Average Earthman 23:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

• Delete notable club. Eivind 02:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep what the..? sorry wrong temp. Eivind 03:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets Wikipedia:Notability. —Eternal Equinox | talk 02:52, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but someone who knows something about this team needs to expand and wikify, as if the team has won 4times and gotten a BBC award I would like to know why. Bayberrylane 03:04, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. AmiDaniel 03:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand, notable enough. --Terence Ong 05:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep notable. --Masssiveego 05:48, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per all. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:50, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all. Bucketsofg 15:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Change: Merge I think even a full and fascinating account of the club is not quite what one expects to find in an encyclopaedia (except one of cricket), nor needs to. If and when the section on Old hill in the page on Amateur Cricket Clubs in England (or whatever title is chosen) gets inconveniently long, _then_ it would be great and easy to split it off. I agree that the information, since it is linked to a person article in WP now, is sufficient that it should not be lost to posterity. Thinking of a future user, as Jakob Nielsen of http://alertbox.com would urge us to, I find it more likely that someone would want to read a page, even a longish page, on the aggregate than search for particular pages on several clubs. From the POV of improvement, I think it is likely that someone from a club that plays them, looking up his own club, would know something worth adding, than that that person would search out each of his club's past opponents and add what he knew to them. (I may be fantasising there, or perhaps I'm enunciating something that should be an rfc and WP policy - I'm assuming there isn't a WP policy on this already...) Midgley 16:02, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
  • A more appropriate merge (and I should point out I still vote keep as above) might be Birmingham and District Premier League, if that wasn't so long already. Average Earthman 18:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Category:Cricket is an encyclopedia of cricket, as all major Wikipedia categories are encyclopedias of their subject. Bhoeble 16:15, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and improve. Surely there are some Brummie cricket fans on Wikipedia who could do this. ProhibitOnions 20:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• That seems perfectly reasonable, particularly the improve bit. I've never felt it is a major problem with WP even in ints present state. If you are sure it woulldn't be happier with some company on its page... Whatever. Midgley 21:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep for all reasons given. Hawkestone 03:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but needs work. Newyorktimescrossword 09:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup as per all keep reasons above. -- Arnzy | Talk 09:54, 13 March 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.