Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stockport cricket club 2
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was no consensus (again). Eugene van der Pijll 19:23, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Stockport cricket club (again)
Previous vfd at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Stockport cricket club. Votes 11-7 in favour of deleting. Its author (Jimmyb (talk · contribs) aka 62.252.192.9 (talk · contribs) (though I think the latter is a shared IP)) even recognised its utter non-importance and even requested that it should be deleted [1], and was clearly just arsing around with it anyway. [2]. If that isn't consensus, though I don't know what is. (This I think has a quite a lot to do with the fact that I vote on the merits of school articles rather than automatically voting keep).
To clarify: This is a small cricket club, which there are thousands like throughout the country. We lack depth on the subject; we have articles on each of the County Championship sides, but the Minor counties (the next level down) are just listed - and only Cambridgeshire has an article. It sits like a thorn in category:English cricket right next to the MCC!. It gets 110 Google hits, none of which reveals a website. Dunc|☺ 12:27, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, if you think "11-7" is consensus, you obviously don't know what it is. Kappa 12:42, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I'd like to see a reference to it, and it should be at Stockport Cricket Club - but it passes the (admittedly very low) WP notability threshold. As far as lack of website is concerned - if you have a look at List of current first-class cricket teams you'll see that many major clubs lack a website, jguk 12:50, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- But no cricket club without a website has an article... It is also different for Pakistan, Bangladesh and West Indies where use of the Web for such things is far less. Incidentally, this article is never going to be verifiable, simply because there is no possible reference. smoddy 13:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Already gone through VFD, too early for renomination. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete I feel I need to explain the structure of English cricket. At the top level, there is the County Championship. This is equivilent to the Premiership. There are 18 counties. In addition, there is a minor counties championship, perhaps equivilent to football's lower professional leagues. Very few players in minor counties cricket are professional. Then, below that, is league cricket. These are Saturday afternoon cricketers. This is where Stockport is. Now, there is no promotion between these levels. Therefore, Stockport cricket club can never become any more notable than they are today. I understand that the previous keep was on account of people not really understanding quite how insignificant this club is... smoddy 13:05, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep I understand perfectly well, and there is no reason why Wikipedia shouldn't cover clubs like this. This should not have been renominated. CalJW 15:37, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Comment I undeleted it because 11-7 is not consensus for anything, and the original poster has no right to ask for it to be automatically deleted if other people have also edited the article. I have no opinion on whether this should be allowed so soon after the first vfd debate, or on the article itself. -- Francs2000 | Talk
13:09, 22 July 2005 (UTC) - Comment: with "club members who died in both World Wars", it must at least be nearly a century old, which possibly speaks in its favour. Uppland 13:55, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. Most cricket clubs in the country are that age. My town club was founded some time in the 1860s, yet Monmouth Cricket Club is red. smoddy 13:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia has hardly started crawling yet. It will have much more depth in 10 years time. CalJW 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps WP will evolve into an indiscriminate collection of information, but it isn't there yet. Consider (1) that many places that have such clubs are stubs, and (2) we have a single article on a minor county. Look at the number of cricket clubs in Greater Manchester only. Now further consider that at the next level down, the top club league in Lancashire is the Lancashire League. I can't find which league Stockport are in, but it's below this. Starting from the bottom and working up isn't a very clever approach to writing articles. Revisit this issue in 10 years perhaps, but not now. Dunc|☺ 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- I was not under the impression that Wikipedia as a whole used any specific "approach to writing articles". Nor do I believe that arguments such as "there are more notable things without articles" is a valid reason to delete any article. The correct response would be to write an article for the more important cricket clubs if cricket clubs interest you, and leave the valid stub be either way. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Perhaps WP will evolve into an indiscriminate collection of information, but it isn't there yet. Consider (1) that many places that have such clubs are stubs, and (2) we have a single article on a minor county. Look at the number of cricket clubs in Greater Manchester only. Now further consider that at the next level down, the top club league in Lancashire is the Lancashire League. I can't find which league Stockport are in, but it's below this. Starting from the bottom and working up isn't a very clever approach to writing articles. Revisit this issue in 10 years perhaps, but not now. Dunc|☺ 18:19, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- But Wikipedia has hardly started crawling yet. It will have much more depth in 10 years time. CalJW 15:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Not really. Most cricket clubs in the country are that age. My town club was founded some time in the 1860s, yet Monmouth Cricket Club is red. smoddy 13:59, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, equivalent to a not particularly notable local business. Dcarrano 15:07, July 22, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete seems to be of at best local notability. DES 18:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete for non-notability. Nandesuka 19:20, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Perhaps vanity from a Mr. M. Short? Not notable. -R. fiend 20:45, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Merge with Stockport. The information is somewhat useful, I feel, but it does feel a bit odd sitting on its own. Sam Vimes 22:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete or Merge with Stockport. --Calton | Talk 00:18, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 04:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep again, both for the reason cited at the previous VfD and for the reason that there was a previous VfD not so long ago. -- Jonel | Speak 15:10, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I believe your original reasoning was "cricket clubs are inherently notable", though it would be interesting to see you justify and elaborate on that comment. The previous vfd ended in "no consensus". Dunc|☺ 16:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Tony has pointed out the verifiability of such clubs. It is trivial to make the articles NPOV. Uppland has noted that the clubs typically have a great deal of longevity, including the one in question. If those qualities are not enough to create an assumption of noteworthiness that must be overcome in order for me to agree with deletion, I don't know what qualities would be. Also, if people went through and re-nominated every article that finished VfD as "no consensus" (or worse, deleted the article anyway as you did with this one), VfD would be an even more aggravating place to spend time than it is now. I hope you're not really suggesting that articles be nominated time after time until they reach consensus. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- I believe your original reasoning was "cricket clubs are inherently notable", though it would be interesting to see you justify and elaborate on that comment. The previous vfd ended in "no consensus". Dunc|☺ 16:01, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Keep again. If our cricket coverage lacks depth, we will achieve that depth by writing more cricket club articles, not deleting the few that we have. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 17:41, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, about half-notable clubs. This article can never be verified, because no sources exist. The club will never become even remotely notable. This isn't just a "lower division" club. This is a "right down the bottom of the scale" club. Improving our cricket coverage will never, I repeat, never, encompass this sort of article. [[smoddy]] 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's a cricket club. It's simply incorrect to say that it isn't possible to write a verifiable article. Cheshire Cricket Board lists the club's name and a contact name and address, and gives match summaries involving the club's teams. It isn't a prestigious county club but it's active in local league. If someone wants to write about it, I see no reason why they shouldn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed it does appear to be in Cheshire rather than Lancs. However I count about 56 clubs in Chesh. plus 12 unafilliated clubs. There are 53 traditional counties in England and Wales, so we're saying that you've just requested about 3000 rather mundane and difficult to verify articles, whilst bearing in mind that Cheshire County Cricket Club itself doesn't have one yet. Dunc|☺ 20:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Whether Cheshire County Cricket Club has an article or not is irrelevant. When someone wants to write an article about it, an article would be written. Just because no one has yet isn't a good reason to delete other articles. -- Jonel | Speak 23:35, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- We're discussing whether to delete this article, not whether a further 3,000 articles should be written. If someone wants to write a verifiable article about a small cricket club, I personally have no problem with that. It's a wiki. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 03:34, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
- Indeed it does appear to be in Cheshire rather than Lancs. However I count about 56 clubs in Chesh. plus 12 unafilliated clubs. There are 53 traditional counties in England and Wales, so we're saying that you've just requested about 3000 rather mundane and difficult to verify articles, whilst bearing in mind that Cheshire County Cricket Club itself doesn't have one yet. Dunc|☺ 20:47, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- It's a cricket club. It's simply incorrect to say that it isn't possible to write a verifiable article. Cheshire Cricket Board lists the club's name and a contact name and address, and gives match summaries involving the club's teams. It isn't a prestigious county club but it's active in local league. If someone wants to write about it, I see no reason why they shouldn't. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:34, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Yes, about half-notable clubs. This article can never be verified, because no sources exist. The club will never become even remotely notable. This isn't just a "lower division" club. This is a "right down the bottom of the scale" club. Improving our cricket coverage will never, I repeat, never, encompass this sort of article. [[smoddy]] 19:09, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, local sports clubs generally aren't notable. Radiant_>|< 19:04, July 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable. Squash 08:49, 27 July 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.
