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. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricdb[edit]

Delete. Not notable. // Cachedio (talk) 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:54, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:55, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no assertion of notability and non-notable as far as I can tell. Fails WP:WEB. I checked some random player profile pages eg. and they don't appear to have been updated since June 2007, so not a reliable source. –Moondyne 00:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Gandygatt (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note:Not transcluded at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 January 7 until this point in the discussion. See this discussion for details. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 04:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Boston (talk) 01:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable, failing WP:WEB, and furthermore not really all that reliable, either. JBsupreme (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2009 (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.