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. Sandstein 07:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Action Sports Cricket IPT Records

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Apart from the other complaints raised per the existing tags, these items have no WP:Notability whatsoever as they do not represent any form of top-level cricket or even minor cricket of a notable standard. I am also nominating the following related pages because there is no notability, no provenance, no sources:

Nomination is delete in all cases because none of these subjects are notable. They bear no relation to first-class cricket and there are no sources in any of the articles. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 21:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind about the last four having found more information. The articles each need to be tagged for lack of sources but I believe now that the topics are notable enough. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all 3 up for nomination. None of them have any offical status, not notable to stand alone on their own. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all except the pages the nominator crossed out. Searches such as this one for Inter Provincial Tournament Meyersdal, this one for Action Sports Cricket IPT Records, and this one for Action Sports IPT cricket return no coverage in reliable sources and fail Wikipedia:Notability. Because these articles are unsourced, they fail Wikipedia:Verifiability and should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2010 (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.