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. Sandstein 19:10, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HoldingWilley[edit]

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

Most of the article is sourced with primary sources. No significant coverage in WP:RS to pass WP:NWEB. This site's coverage is similar to recently deleted one Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CricketArchive. Alexa rank of 196,934 in January 2016, says it all. Störm (talk) 14:26, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 14:30, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete . The subject matter is promotional one. Even CA didn't long last. So what's the point in keeping this article. Abishe (talk) 11:59, 26 December 2017 (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.