Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultimate Kricket Challenge

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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In line with WP:DPR#NAC, I have vacated the above no-consensus closure. The correct consensus of this debate was to delete. Notability has not been sufficiently established. Stifle (talk) 11:48, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Kricket Challenge

Ultimate Kricket Challenge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Following this brief disucssion at WT:CRIC, it doesn't seem this tournament is notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:25, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, just because some notable players were there, it doesn't make this tournament notable. Fails WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 10:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per nom, fails WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 11:31, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A google search for site:espncricinfo.com "Ultimate Kricket Challenge", where I'd expect to find coverage of any major cricketing event, finds a passing mention in 1 (one) article. Rest of coverage seems to be promotional / listings. This should probably be assessed against WP:NTV as well as / instead of WP:CRIN. Spike 'em (talk) 11:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 12:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per all of the above Spiderone 12:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, broadcasted on major networks, features best-known players, if there's only one mention on Cricinfo then we may as well take down other articles such as Everest Premier League that have been voted to keep, SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 13:05, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:NOTINHERITED. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; possibly warrants a redirect and a sentence or two in indoor cricket single wicket cricket per WP:ATD as it could be argued that it meets WP:NEVENT (novel format). There is coverage, but a lot of it is nothing more than reworked press releases, and the remainder is not enough to meet WP:GNG. It's possible that future editions will generate more independent coverage from diverse sources, and should that happen the article can be recreated. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a redirect, I think it should be to single wicket cricket; see my comments below. Adpete (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that may be more suitable (amended !vote) – in any event, a brief summary and probably a redirect should be retained if (as seems likely) consensus determines this does not fulfil the criteria for a standalone article. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 11:18, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CRIN. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Keep as a draft in case there's future editions that generate more coverage? SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 19:57, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Article is largely promotional, highly unlikely ever to be notable. Nigej (talk) 20:46, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Could perhaps have a 'Cricket tournaments in Dubai' page which mentions it? Don't think one exists yet but they seem to hold a lot of tournaments which are not notable on their own but overall the numerous tournaments could be listed somewhereJagarTharnofTamriel (talk) 22:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Give me some examples and I'll draft up. SpongeRick Starpants (talk) 08:50, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Weak keep - this seems to be a form of single wicket cricket, which is notable enough to have its own article, and there have been a few tournaments of this form over the decades [1]. That, plus the notable participants, makes it pass WP:GNG in my opinion. WP:RS coverage here [2], the Hindustan Times; and perhaps more significantly, in Wisden [3] - I know it's just a reworked press release, but it's still Wisden. If deleted, it should still get a mention at single wicket cricket. Adpete (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. ☎️ Churot ^DancePop 07:43, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - per Adpete. extra999 (talk) 13:27, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's shit, obviously, but it does seem to be notable enough to have gotten some coverage. I happened to catch 5 minutes of it whilst channel hopping, which was about four minutes more than it deserved. I suspect it's big on the Indian subcontinent and just because things are shit we don't need to delete them (I mean, England in the 90s were really shit, but we keep their tours). Blue Square Thing (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• A few more points in support of my "weak keep": (1) Nowhere does WP:CRIN define what makes an event notable, as far as I can see; so we're on our own working that out. (2) As a made-for-TV event, it might qualify under WP:TVSHOW, which says: "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience". On the other hand, it also says "a national television program might not be notable if it was cancelled too quickly to have garnered any media coverage". To me that says this is definitely notable if it becomes a regular event, but is borderline if it turns out to be a one-off event. (3) But even as a one-off, the notable participants, and its similarities to the historically important single wicket cricket, push it over the line as "weak keep" for me. (4) Against the keep, is the total absence of independent press coverage; i.e. every media article I have found appears to be a press release. Certainly some truly independent discussion would help its notability. Adpete (talk) 23:08, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • aaaaand one more curiosity: I have just noticed it was not played on the broadcast dates, because on the broadcast dates Rashid Khan was in Australia playing BBL [4]. So it's more a made-for-TV special, for better or worse. Adpete (talk) 02:39, 28 January 2021 (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.