Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricket Ratings/Ranking
- 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 of the debate was delete.
Mailer Diablo 13:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
]
Cricket Ratings/Ranking
This page contains nothing but extensive reporting on recent cricket results and current ratings, copied from the ICC ratings. Information about the ratings is already at
]- Delete per LG ICC cricket ratings is a much better article for an encyclopaedia, and points to a website with the up-to-date list. Stephen Turner (Talk) 10:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)]
- Delete per nom. A better article of a similar topic already exists. GizzaChat © 10:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete particularly per Stephen's point about this being dropped once the author moves on. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment There's lots of pages which link to this that'll need mods if this ends up being deleted -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've notified User:80.76.228.108 (the original author) as well as User:205.143.204.110, User:205.143.204.206, User:205.143.204.198 and User:205.143.204.102 (presumably all the same person) of this AfD as per AfD etiquette. -- Ian ≡ talk 13:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete I agree with DaGizza. The LG ICC cricket ratings is much better. Also I would like to commend JPD on removing the link from many pages. --]
Srikeit(talk ¦ ✉) 18:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete But unlike DaGizza and Srikeit, I believe we need a lot of work done to the LG ICC cricket ratings to make it a worthwile article. I'd say delete it per Stephen, seeing as it doesn't look like it can be updated forever without a lot of effort from the contributors. Nobleeagle (Talk) 22:34, 30 March 2006 (UTC)]
- Comment I'm the author and I don't see the problem. I took an article that was over a year out of date and updated and improved it. If this article is a problem why was it not deleted when it was horrendously out of date. In this article, my aim was to gather useful information from a variety of sources, combine them into a single piece, and detail how recent innings affected the Test ratings. The LG ICC cricket ratings article is poor, and other than an external link offers no up-to-date information. I fail to see the harm that this article was doing. With regards the comment about just taking information from other sources, of course that's what i've been doing. You may as well shut Wikipedia down entirely if this is the source of your problem, because i'm sure just about everything on here can be found somewhere else on the web. I'm sorry if i've stepped on the toes of whatever club you have going on here, and am dissapointed that contributors to an online encyclopedia would want to erase information - especially as this information that can not be found in this combination anywhere else on the web. I enjoyed updating it, and my work affords me plenty of time to have done so. Please delete the article.
- The article as it was before you updated probably would have been deleted if anybody had noticed. You did update it well, and made us notice it by linking to it on other pages. I agree that it contains interesting information, but it is not all the sort of information that you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Any information that is appropriate would probably be better added to LG ICC cricket ratings, rather than in a completely separate article. JPD (talk) 04:55, 4 April 2006 (UTC)]
- The article as it was before you updated probably would have been deleted if anybody had noticed. You did update it well, and made us notice it by linking to it on other pages. I agree that it contains interesting information, but it is not all the sort of information that you would expect to find in an encyclopaedia. Any information that is appropriate would probably be better added to
- 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.