Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clifton hill Cricket Club

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. Deor (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton hill Cricket Club[edit]

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

Non notable, just another cricket club playing in a non professional league. Sounds like a promotional article Gbawden (talk) 13:24, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree that it reads like a promotional article. The words "Our home ground and clubrooms" are a bit of a give-away. And there's no indication that the club is notable. JH (talk page) 15:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - non-notable cricket club, well it is as far as I can tell! Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the article should be kept as it is just being used to put the local suburban cricket club out to the world, it is just to show the history of all the good players the we have had over our history. This page is not a promotional article as all of the stats and history is from the club website and the page is managed by a current club player who is making sure at everything a correct to the clubs history.~User:MRT2014 User talk:MRT2014 — Preceding undated comment added 14:05, 18 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
delete low level amateur sporting club, and full of useless statistics. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 19 July 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.