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.
Delete: After revision deletion there is no way that this organization is notable at the slightest; the only source provided is likely promotional.
HarukaAmaranth春香18:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - makes no odds if it "lacks remit" or "lacks jurisdiction", the criteria for notability and inclusion is being noted in reliable sources. That's the only point to discuss. I've been able to find a few sources that could be discussed for reliability including
1 and
2 and
3. I think there are probably more.
JMWt (
talk)
07:40, 27 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Despite some sources, the organization's lack of governing remit over European cricket, alongside insufficient evidence of notability, supports its removal. --
Rodgers V (
talk)
13:08, 1 November 2023 (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.