Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Bromyard Cricket Club

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Drafts have a significantly lower bar for inclusion than articles in mainspace. Satisfying GNG is not a requirement for drafts. —⁠ScottyWong⁠— 22:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bromyard Cricket Club

miss-use of Wikipedia as a web host, we are not a permanent repository of random non notable cricket club details, user clearly has no intention of submitting for review. Theroadislong (talk) 21:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) This is a wholly incorrect statement to make and unfounded. The user Theroadislong clearly has no cricket specialist knowledge and to suggest my edits are ‘random non notable cricket club details’ is offensive. This club has had notable players that have played International and First Class cricket for them. To suggest they are non notable suggests that the user has decided he will remove edits without careful understanding of what they contain. This cricket club plays in the same division as Old Hill Cricket Club that have their own Wiki page. I challenge the thoughtless process this user has used to suggest it be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerupdate (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then why do you not submit it for review? Theroadislong (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NDRAFT. It looks like a draft. There is no evidence presented of NOTWEBHOSTING. Pageviews indicate no NOTWEBHOST abuse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend to Writerupdate (talk · contribs) that they userfy the draft, strip the afc tags, blank it, and get more experience improving content before trying to write new pages. Writing new pages is a big challenge. Come back to it when you have more experience.

I think that this draft does not have a pathway to mainspace. The Author may read WP:DUD, and may unilaterally mainspace it, and then it will be deleted at AfD. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NDRAFT. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 00:42, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The subject does not meet either NCRICK or GNG, therefore it is entirely fair and correct to describe this as non-notable. The draft was declined nearly 11 months ago for inadequate referencing, and nothing has been done to address that. Instead, the creator keeps updating the statistics and other content which has no bearing on this issue, very much suggesting that there is no attempt to get the draft ready for publication; nor, indeed, has it been resubmitted since last July. The ultimate aim of a draft must surely be to produce a published article, otherwise we are merely providing a web hosting service, as the nom asserts. (And finally, just to point out that WP:NDRAFT is an essay, not a notability guideline.) --DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then; WP:NMFD applies and that is an explanatory essay based on a standing policy. WaltCip-(talk) 21:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Abuse of Draft space. This is not what Draft was intended for 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 07:26, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I thing "abuse" is a bit strong. "Misuse"; not intentional, this is a new user. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can it please be explained to me why two cricket clubs in Bromyard’s division have Wiki pages? Namely Stourbridge CC and Old Hill CC. If anything Bromyard is more notable having listed on this draft the names of Internationals and First Class players that have played for them. If the issue is the statistics I can remove them and resubmit for review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerupdate (talk • contribs) 09:41, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one root of the problem is that you are not up to speed with WP:NOR. Your draft reads as an original study. It’s hard to explain how to fix it, but if you spend some time working on improving existing content, it will help you. SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writerupdate See other poor quality articles exist, Stourbridge Cricket Club should probably be deleted too, it has zero references. You appear to have no intention of re-submitting the draft and you're just using the space to record club details. Theroadislong (talk) 11:27, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The space here on Wiki is not to record this club’s statistics. They can all be found on their Play Cricket web page which is also referenced on the draft so it is sourced. You edited this draft and took away the statistics so you obviously feel without those it is suitable. When I added the statistics back on you felt the need to submit for deletion as you nose got put out of joint. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Writerupdate (talk • contribs) 11:37, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep this was a candidate for CSD U5 web host but now that the extensive stats were removed after the MFD was proposed, it could be considered on its own, should stay at draft. If the stats are restored though, then it should be deleted. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:55, 20 June 2022 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.