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 was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Common room cricket[edit]

Common room cricket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Appears to fail WP:NFT. NMChico24 22:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment wat can i do to improve this and stop it from being deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usmanali786 (talk • contribs)
  • Please see WP:NFT. Thank you. --NMChico24 23:57, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete google results, WP:NFT.--aviper2k7 01:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Playing cricket (and other ball games) in Common Rooms of English Secondary Schools is fun and has no doubt been going on for many decades. It is regretfully not notable. Also, I see the article credits invention of the game to "Usman Ali", who is coincidentally the creator of this article. I would be intrigued to know how old Mr Ali is, as I suspect the game is far older than him... WJBscribe 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I didn't even have to read this article to know that NFT would apply. I did to make sure, of course, but I wasn't surprised. -- Kicking222 01:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 01:39, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Fred McGarry 02:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator --Arnzy (talk • contribs) 02:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. MER-C 03:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NFT. Why is it that when an article says that something "is sweeping the nation at an extremely quick pace", it never is? Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We have been deleting articles like this for yonks - Corridor Cricket, Common Room Cricket, you name it. They are not notable. --Bduke 08:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per all reasons above. ><RichardΩ612

^ER 09:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete of course. But these things are always rather fun to read before they inevitably get deleted. Johnlp 10:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails WP:NFT. 0L1 Talk Contribs 11:09 3/12/2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. TSO1D 14:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:NFT. Terence Ong 15:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no reliable sources means this article can not pass WP:NFT.-- danntm ^T _C 18:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources.--Meno25 20:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason as the nomination. ArmAndLeg 21:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's fun, probably relatively common, but think that in this format NFT would still apply. SkierRMH,07:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per essentially all above. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.