Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hoppers crossing cricket club

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 13:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hoppers crossing cricket club

This is a suburban turf-cricket club in Melbourne. The highest type of cricket below interstate cricket is grade cricket. Turf cricket is a level below this, and is thus two tiers below first-class cricket. I don't think it is notable as a social phenomenon, as local suburban cricket matches usually attract 50 spectators.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 07:02, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Not notable enough for mine although there may be a case for a composite article on the Melbourne turf cricket competition. Individual clubs at this level are not notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster 07:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. -- Capitalistroadster 07:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- Longhair 07:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Neither notable nor verifiable. Kevin 08:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
    • Incorrect, it is easily verifiable [1], [2], [3], [4], and so on. It does appear to be a pretty much direct lift of this though. Average Earthman 20:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete--cj | talk 09:48, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. ProhibitOnions 12:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 12:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Roisterer 14:20, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 14:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep or merge with Hoppers Crossing, Victoria. Real sports club, and easily verifiable, a former player now plays for England 'A'. The significant number of teams it is capable of fielding suggest rather a large membership. Average Earthman 20:22, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd suggest this makes a good case for deleting a lot of those lower baseball league entries too, as also being not notable enough. Paddles 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment: I don't think a professional sports team drawing 151,000 paid spectators a season and which has included 90-odd major league players (San Jose Giants (California League)) in its history counts as non-notable. In no way are the SJ Giants "of the same level" as this club. --Calton | Talk 06:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment Is it reasonable to play the simple numbers game when you consider the huge difference in total population and supporting populations between Australia and the US. It is still a state league and as such is classed in the same level. Ansell 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per excellent argument by Average Earthman above. Jcuk 21:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per AverageEarthman. Hornplease 07:01, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete sources are one thing. But I know 5 or 6 people that play for this club at the U15 and other junior levels. And I know that this club is not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. Nobleeagle (Talk) 07:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable enough. Paddles 15:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete nn. --Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 02:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Average Earthman. bbx 02:02, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Average Earthman, lets try to keep a consistency with things like notability. Ansell 12:29, 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.