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 keep. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WASP (Winning and Score Predictor)[edit]

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

Delete. Does not meet WP:Notability. Sources do not confirm any notability and include some which are deadlinks and others like the match scorecard which are incidental. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and redirect to one of the academics behind this, if they're notable. Stuartyeates (talk) 20:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:08, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has quite a bit of coverage from a range of sources (from a quick Google search). I don't know if it is of significance to the cricketing community but may be notable enough for a keep if they agree. NealeFamily (talk) 06:46, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this methodology is now being utilised within UK coverage of cricket as well as New Zealand where the technique was developed. I think this may become an established part of future coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fd2006 (talk • contribs) 18:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wasp has been shown to be a useful and interesting statistical guide, and is being used on major broadcasting channels in their coverage of the 20/20 format and is proving a great talking point both for the commentators and amongst the viewing community - it will become a significant part of television cricket coverage and I would suggest the entry should be kept.Gkt57uk (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw nomination. Evidently it is becoming widely used so I suppose it will attain notability but the editors need to observe WP:MOS and especially categorisation which I have now done for them. Jack | ^{talk page} 19:04, 21 May 2014 (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.