Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 6

6 October 2011

Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The article was, and is continously deleted on the outcome of a deletion review 'discussion' (I put that was itself highly dubious and subjective. I am creating this review because the previous review did not allow for enough time for rebuttals, and believe me there are many, to be made to the grounds for deleting the original Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club page on any forum on wikipedia. On to the meat of this deletion review. The grounds applied for 'notability' are extraordinarily impractical for a club that operates anywhere outside test playing countries. Also the 'lack of coverage' cited by the author of the original deletion reflects more an unwillingness to scour local and regional press outside his locale than an actual absence of coverage. With these pithy words I hereby declare this deletion review open. Kimemia Maina (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2011 (UTC) This was posted to Kenya Kongonis prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review. I have moved it here because it purports to be a request for deletion review. I have no opinion about this page myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Restore and let the original creator to work on the article. Kongonis is a notable Kenyan cricket club and there's sufficient coverage to build a decent article. See for example: [1] Daily Nation [2] Sify News [3] The Standard (Kenya) [4] The Standard (Kenya) [5] ESPN I'm sure it is possible to find out more. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 08:20, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Keep deleted - I'll still argue the club is non-notable, but the league it is part of is. May be restore under a redirect to the relevant league, in a similar vain to what was done for Irish cricket clubs. A long discussion took place, which was so long no consensus was reached, but many points were agreed upon. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 12:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC) I don't know about the specific WP:CRICKET notability guidelines, but in my opinion Kongonis Cricket Club meets WP:GNG, as it is a subject of independent coverage in multiple national (Kenyan) and international reliable sources. It means that the club is a subject of interest of international cricket community and this can be reflected also by Wikipedia. The purpose of this project is to provide encyclopedic information, and in this case it is definitely possible. I don't believe that we want to go against the interests of our readers. Sources at G-Books say that "Kongonis Cricket Club ... became the controlling body of Kenya cricket in 1932 (!)" (Red strangers: the white tribe of Kenya, ISBN 9781857252064, p. 171), or that "...Cricket in the Colony is controlled by the Kenya Kongonis Cricket Club which assumes similar responsibilities for the welfare of the game as does the Marylebone Cricket Club in England..." (The travellers' guide to Kenya and Uganda: Vol. 2 (1936), p. 196). I'm sorry, but I can see no benefit for Wikipedia in deleting this kind of information. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 14:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)  Administrator note I was not the closing admin. I speedied the article under G4 twice and then salted the article. The person who should have been notified is TParis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), which I've done. causa sui (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Right, restore, but on the grounds that the original author can include the relevant sources which make it meet the WP:GNG requirements. Previously little information was there, then I believe a body of text was included which was removed by another editor for copyright violation. Include those sources and that'll be fine and dandy. Just don't let a certain Irish editor get wind! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Comment The AFD closure appears perfectly in the right given the condition of the article at the time it was closed. But AFDs are not binding forever, especially if circumstances change such that the objections raised in the AFD are addressed. Also, the way this was handled seems a bit off. TParis was never contacted about this. Had I been contacted, I would have userfied the article on request. WP:AFC would give the user opportunity to draft an article that addressed the concerns raised at the AFD. So it's not actually necessary to overturn the AFD through a DRV like this, it seems. causa sui (talk) 16:56, 6 October 2011 (UTC) Deleting admin comments I would take note that User:Kimemia Maina makes an absolutely terrible argument. The AFD ran the standard 7 days given any discussion, the AFD followed proper procedures, and was closed appropriately. User:Kimemia Maina makes no attempt to justify a deletion review in the nomination such as A) Describing what about the AFD did not follow policy or consensus, or B) Providing new substantial evidence that addresses the issues of the AFD. The guidelines for 'notability' for these clubs is not up for debate here or AFD. If they want to discuss that, they can do it on the appropriate guideline talk page. The nomination is a poor excuse of a nomination and if it were not for the work of User:Vejvančický then I'd be upset at this waste of my time. However, I'm not opposed to a restore per User:Vejvančický. Obviously the subject meets GNG.--v/r - TP 20:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC) It isn't crucially important where the discussion is running (AFD, AFC, DRV, talk pages etc.). User:Kimemia Maina posted their objections to the main space as Kenya Kongonis prefix:Wikipedia:Deletion review. They are apparently unfamiliar with all the complicated procedures of Wikipedia, however, it doesn't mean that their argument is "absolutely terrible". Certainly nobody is obliged to know all of our procedures by heart. Kimemia Maina forgot to notify/discuss the issue with the closing admin, but I don't think it is a big catastrophe, as almost all involved parties are now notified about this DRV, and this discussion could attract an attention of other editors specializing in this area. User:Metropolitan90 moved their post here, which was a correct and logical step. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 10:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC) The DRV is essentially "It was deleted but I liked it". That's a terrible argument for a DRV. If it wasn't for your sources, I'd suggest this be speedy closed.--v/r - TP 11:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)