Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.cricket

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, consensus is that the article fails the notability guidelines. Davewild (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.sport.cricket[edit]

Usenet group. All references are to own site, so no evidence of WP:Notability. Comments like "one user in particular specialises in the posting of statistics only, and is the most respected regular user on the group." just go to show that it's not appropriate for an article. A similar AfD was held on its soccer branch. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 21:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete' Fails general notability guideliines as, with most newsgroups, no reliable source coverage found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Although Rec.sport may deserve an Article, individual newsgroups would have to prove WP:N beyond all shadow of doubt. DMOZhandles it quiet efficiently. All the references being to groups.google.com/group is troubling also. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 6 August 2008 (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.