Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lansing 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 Delete. Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lansing Cricket Club

non notable suburban cricket team. It is not notable on cricketing grounds, especially as US does not play cricket to any meaningful extent (if I recall correctly there are only about 10 cricket pitches in America) and let me tell you although that the United States qualified for the last ICC Champions Trophy in 2004, with a team half of whom were over 40 years old, they were Sunday social cricketers, basically all of them were actually Indian/Pakistani/Sri Lankan/British expatriates having a bit of fun, and were defeated by the Australian cricket team in about 20% of the allotted time for the game). So that tells you where cricket in the US is, let alone a random suburban club .ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 01:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. --Lakhim 01:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable. Jadriaen 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral. If cricket is that rare in the U.S., then an organisation which promotes the sport has a certain rarity value, as would a polar polar bear in the Sahara. --BrownHairedGirl 01:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd have to respectfully disagree. If they were good, or had some other minor claim to notability, maybe, but simply being rare does not in and of itself make a topic notable. Lakhim 01:55, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • You have partially persuaded me, Lakhim! Yes, rarity is not always of itself an indication of notability, but nor is it a barrier to inveitability. See Tyrenius's comment below. For me, the question is whether they do indeed have one of the ten cricket pitches in the USA. --BrownHairedGirl 07:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• weak Delete, unless a convincing claim to notability can be made. Defeated by Australia? That is bad, 'cos their cricket team is rubbish now, or so I keep hearing. ;-) Badgerpatrol 02:30, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I think rarity is a notable quality and of interest. If this team has one of only 10 cricket pitches in the US, I would definitely vote Keep. I have notified one of the article contributors to see if they have anything to say on the matter.Tyrenius 04:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - there are only 10 cricket pitches in the US, but I didn't mean that this club had a cricket pitch. In most cases, they are playing on a piece of concrete, instead of a proper grass pitch like Wimbledon.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Eh? Wimbledon cricket pitch? I think wires are definitely crossed here!! Badgerpatrol 15:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Do you think that there are no cricket pitches in Wimbledon? Runcorn 19:42, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, he must have meant the one in Dundonald Road! Well, that changes everything! (????eh????). Badgerpatrol 00:46, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I don't think that the assertation is being made that this happens to be one of the ten, but rather that there only are ten. Even if that isn't the nom's assertion, I don't see any evidence to suggest that it is one of the ten, nor is a proper assertion of notability being made if that is the case. --Lakhim 20:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
    • No, I meant that most cricket pitches are concrete, not a proper grass surface in a similar way to a lawn tennis court.ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 00:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... Cricket in Lansing MI, is worse than NFL Europe...--Isotope23 15:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... Cricket in Lansing MI, is worse than MLS... --Eivind^t@c 23:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom... Cricket in Lansing MI, is worse than...well I can't top those above! --Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 02:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Runcorn 19:42, 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.