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 no consensus. W.marsh 22:51, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hampton Wick Royal Cricket Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

this sports team is not notable Clay5X 13:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Champions in their division in 2006 - but I don't know whether this is a sufficiently major league for that to constitute notability. SamBC(talk) 14:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletions. —Thomjakobsen 14:16, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure what I'm saying. I think it's Keep for now. It needs to be expanded but Wikipedia has no deadline and AfD is not cleanup. The topic may be unnotable, though, i suppose. It only gets 296 hits although I know that the Google test is not a proper indication of the notability. Perhaps you should discuss the notability with the author/editors of the page. Jake the Editor Man 14:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This sports club has not received coverage from reliable independent secondary sources and so there is insufficient evidence of notability to warrant a stub. --Goochelaar 14:26, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, appears to play in second division of some local league. Stephen Turner (Talk) 14:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This cricket club has been in existence for 144 years. This rich history - older than Manchester United and every professional baseball team - makes it notable. Their First XI seem to be doing well enough currently but cricket isn't about winning. Colonel Warden 20:05, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - local cricket club with no apparent signs of notability. - fchd 11:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of ghits some of which to reliable third party independent sources (e.g. BBC) as well as adequate coverage in books on cricket [1]. --Kudret abi^Talk 19:38, 8 October 2007 (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.