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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 08:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

North Wales Premier Cricket League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No evidence of any notability despite article being in existence since 2008. Not a single ref. Fails WP:ORG  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   10:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - References can be found, plus this is one of the ECB's few regional premier leagues, which are deemed by WP:CRIC to be notable. – PeeJay 11:36, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There was one reference on the page at the time it was nominated for deletion. A cursory check of local news media confirms that it is notable enough for its matches and teams to be covered. Longwayround (talk) 12:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep. This league is a member of the ECB Premier Leagues which have long been classified as notable per WP:CRIN. Jack | ^{talk page} 12:04, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The need for any article to meet notability criteria exists whatever a particular Wiki-project may believe. The fact that local newspapers report matches that are of teams within a league does not, of itself make that league notable. Notability is not inherited (upwards or downwards). The reference noted by Longwayround above was, of course, the league's own web-page - not an independent reliable source as required by notability guidelines.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   12:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Wisden Cricketers' Almanack is arguably the most credible of sources for world cricket. I've got the 2006 edition to hand and it covers ECB League Cricket for the 2005 season on pages 946 to 952. It verifies our "belief" that the ECB Premier Leagues are notable by confirming the start of premier league cricket in 1999 and stating that it represents the pinnacle of achievement in this type of cricket (i.e., one day matches involving local clubs and directly comparable with the higher levels of non-league football which are similarly regional in character). There were 24 ECB premier leagues in 2005, the number having increased since 2004 after more were duly recognised as fulfilling ECB standards and I think more have been created in the meantime. North Wales was created in 2001 and is now in its 14th season as a premier league. If you google the league you will find that there are firm references to it in CricketArchive, Cricket Wales, the ECB and others. The CricketArchive find refers to a "major cricket tournament". Instead of raising your issue here, why haven't you tagged the article, which is a stub pending development, with the ref improve tag? Jack | ^{talk page} 14:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Can anyone point to non-local substantial RS coverage, which would meet GNG? Epeefleche (talk) 21:11, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Response. Wisden? As written just above? Wisden devotes an entire chapter every year to the ECB premier leagues per the example given above. Did you not read the previous input? Jack | ^{talk page} 05:33, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As per the opening line of the article on Wisden, "Wisden Cricketers' Almanack (or simply Wisden or colloquially "the Bible of Cricket") is a cricket reference book published annually in the United Kingdom. It is considered the world's most famous sports reference book" per [1] aand subpages of [2]. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 09:57, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:CRIN and User:BlackJack and User:SGGH above. Johnlp (talk) 17:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as all reasons given above - WP:CRIN and Wisden especially. - 97rob (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- It is appropriate to have an article on the league, as bringing together amateur cricket clubs in an area, but we shoul not allow articles on participating clubs or their players (unless otherwise notable). Accoringly the winners list should be de-redlinked. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's a good point, Peter. WP:CRIN makes clear that it is the leagues which are notable. Individual league clubs are not therefore notable per se, though some clubs may be notable individually for other reasons. I will delink the clubs in the article's list. Jack | ^{talk page} 07:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Actually, WP:CRIN states that all clubs in such leagues are notable: Clubs, teams and venues: "...for Great Britain, those clubs which have competed... one of the Bradford Cricket League, the Lancashire League, the Central Lancashire League or one of the ECB Premier Leagues." Harrias ^talk 16:53, 8 June 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.