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. There is no consensus as to whether the sourcing provided is independent or otherwise meets our standards for establishing notability. There is some general consensus that the Central Europe Cup is notable. The idea of changing this article into that can happen outside of AfD. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:03, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

2020 Central Europe Cup

2020 Central Europe Cup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

No evidence that this edition is (yet) in any way notable, only sources are primary ones (a Facebook post by one of the participants is not an independent source of course). Previous editions don't give much indication that this one will become notable if and when it happens; if it does, it can be recreated. Fram ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Fram ( talk) 14:45, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep (or move to Central Europe Cup) This is reported on the Czech website, not just Facebook. Previous editions were played before the ICC granted official Twenty20 International status to all matches between its members in 2019. If this page is not suitable then neither are many others within the Cricket group. The only reason this one has been noticed is that someone originally created the article prior to the proper announcements. Bs1jac ( talk) 14:57, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• The Czech website is the website of the organisers, again not an independent source. If the ICC has now granted Twenty20 International Status to these matches, then the importance of that designation has been diminished greatly, as these are some of the smallest cricket playing countries. Of the 85 countries with T20 ranking, the highest-placed in this tournament is Austria (rank 38), and the lowest is Malta (rank 78, only Gibraltar at 79 is lower placed in Europe). This is not a prestigious tournament between major cricket countries, with lots of media attention; but instead a small tournament between amateur sides, with so far no media attention at all. Fram ( talk) 15:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep multi-national tournament confirmed by several cricket boards, including the first international matches scheduled to be played by the Czech Republic team. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:04, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply
  • You meant in. Czechs play T20Is before. Human ( talk) 15:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Ahh yes, in Czech, not by Czech. Thanks! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:18, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep As per User:Bs1jac and User:Lugnuts' comments. And most probably the nominator needs to see that other associate international tournament articles have already been created. They didn't have any issues this shouldn't either. Human ( talk) 15:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Can also confirm that i understant at least two third-party articles are imminent. Bs1jac ( talk) 15:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• So, no actual reasons for creating or keeping this article at the moment as far as Wikipedia rules are goes, just "we like it" and some crystal balling? Not surprising, I have to say. And a creator with a clear WP:COI apparently to boot. Fram ( talk) 16:58, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Please WP:AGF and I don't need to remind you of WP:NPA. As already detailed, there's plenty of coverage from the respective cricket boards of this international multi-team tournament. So that would meet WP:GNG. And as for crystal balling - WP:CRYSTAL clearly states, at point 1, "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Which is the case here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:11, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

What personal attacks? That someone who somehow knows that "at least two third-party articles are imminent" has a COI as they are clearly involved somehow with the organisation? As for AGF, perhaps you and Human could have noted here that you have been WP:CANVASSed to come here by the creator? Fram ( talk) 07:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The personal attack is the COI claim. See WP:ASPERSIONS. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

It's not an aspersion when evidence is provided. Knowing beforehand that multiple articles are imminent, knowing beforehand that Emerging Cricket will post an article, is evidence of a COI, and not a personal attack. Feel free to take it to ANI if you want to insist that it is one, I don't think you will get a positive response though. Fram ( talk) 07:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid it is an aspersion. You didn't expand on that COI when you made it. I'm sure if I had done that to you in that context, it would be you heading to ANI to report me. Of course E/C would eventually write about it - that's what they do. Write about Associate cricket. Anyone who knows anything about Associate cricket could guess that one. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:34, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

No, I only take you to ANI when you make "real" personal attacks, as was concluded there. When someone writes "Can also confirm that i understant at least two third-party articles are imminent." and the reply to that is that the author apparently has a clear COI, then what expansion did you expect? People generally don't know that "two third party articles are imminent" unless they have a close connection to the organisation (or the articles). Fram ( talk) 08:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Not really. You clearly stated "and a creator with a clear WP:COI apparently to boot" An obvious attack and/or aspersion. Saying "two third party articles are imminent" isn't a COI - it's from someone with knowledge of the subject area, and knows that third-party coverage will happen, as it's a international multi-team tournament. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:35, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

To be clear, I have literally no affiliation with any cricket board or reporting group. I 'knew' the EC article was on its way because they always cover these official tournaments within hours of a press release going out. It's also called doing some research... I watched a live stream of a tournament at the weekend during which the commentator (who was a rep from Czech Cricket) mentioned this forthcoming event, so I dropped them a DM asking which teams would be involved as I was interested, and was told that they would be announcing it on Wednesday. You have vastly misjudged if you were so certain that there was any COI. Bs1jac ( talk) 08:28, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the full reply and confirmation of no COI, Bs1jac. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

What's the conflict of interest??? Bs1jac ( talk) 17:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

None of the involved cricket boards are independent of the subject; as such coverage on their websites does not contribute anything towards meeting GNG. We need significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The fact that Central Europe Cup does not exist leads me to believe that the competition itself is probably not notable; presuming elevated ICC status automatically establishes notability without seeing any of the necessary coverage violates CRYSTAL. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 17:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Still maintain that this is a notable tournament. Fully ICC-recognised, multi-national tournament, almost certain to happen, at least one independent ref now in place, with other bound to follow shortly, first ever time such a level of cricket has taken place in Czechia, etc. Unrelated of course, but if you want an example of non-notable, try 2020 Baltic Cup... only 3 fixtures, only refs are from national associations (not even in English), the highest ranked team – Estonia – are currently ranked 104th, and the tournament never happened. But it's football. Not sure what has happened here to WP:NPA and WP:AGF, or what kind of WP:COI you seem to think I have? Totally unreasonable and uncalled for. Bs1jac ( talk) 18:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I still see no independent 3rd party source discussing this tournament in depth. One extremely trivial passing mention in the Times of Malta is not enough. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 19:01, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The 2020 Baltic Cup is a good example. As are the Pulai Springs Malaysian Masters and the Bristol & District Cricket Association too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Nope, not comparable (but of course you're free to nominate any of them for deletion if you so wish). Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Please try to focus on the article at hand. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 20:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes they are comparable, as none of those articles have independent 3rd party source discussing those tournaments in depth. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

WP:OTHERSTUFF says arguments based solely on this idea. The user didn't seem to vote keep for this reason. Human ( talk) 20:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

But that is the sum total of their arguments in this sub-thread (ignoring the pointy-ness). _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 08:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Worse, that article from the Times of Malta, added by Lugnuts [1] is from 2015 and is invalidly used to reference stuff about 2020. The one-sentence mention isn't about the 2020 Cup at all. Fram ( talk) 08:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

To be fair, that was a bad example and a mistake from the editor. I have removed it. Bs1jac ( talk) 08:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• KEEP This has been a notable annual international cricket tournament for at least five years, and is scheduled for another addition this year according to reputable international cricket news organisation, Emerging Cricket. ^[1] If anything, its elevation to ICC accredited T20I status makes it even more notable. Conversely, soccer articles on Island Games or Conifa World Cup are non-FIFA accredited events, but have articles, and rightly so. Agermeister 15:39, 2 September 2020 (EST)
• A very clearly independent news article, specifically on this event, now referenced. Sure more will follow shortly. Bs1jac ( talk) 22:14, 2 September 2020 (UTC) reply

One article, with little depth. Much more is needed to satisfy GNG, etc. and crystal-ball assertions of future coverage don't mean anything. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 08:30, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Another independent source is now in (Cricket Europe), with more depth than the first. Bs1jac ( talk) 09:49, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

And another... Bs1jac ( talk) 10:05, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Note that article creator Bs1jac has WP:CANVASSed the first two keep votes, Lugnuts and Human (see User talk:Lugnuts#Central Europe Cup and User talk:A Simple Human/Archive 1#Central Europe Cup. Fram ( talk) 07:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

We would both have found this AfD in anycase, due to the subject matter. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

So? That doesn't make it any less canvassing. Fram ( talk) 07:22, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I asked Lugnuts to look as he is one of the key expert in the field, makes an incredible number of contributions to content and discussions (including deletion of content where necessary) etc. This clearly falls within Appropriate Notification. Why so aggressive? Bs1jac ( talk) 07:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete (weak support for a move & rewrite to Central Europe Cup) per my comments above; a single source of limited depth is entirely insufficient coverage to satisfy GNG. At present, it seems far more likely that the tournament itself (i.e. Central Europe Cup) is notable – it would therefore be reasonable for an article to be created for that, which would include summaries of each edition. This article could then be merged rather than deleted. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 08:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

There are now at least three separate independent sources out there (in addition to the primary source official announcements). Bs1jac ( talk)

Czar sports doesn't work for me, and apart from EC all the others seem like official, primary sources, no? Fram ( talk) 11:50, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Emerging Cricket, Cricket Europe and Czar Sports are not primary sources. These are all independent cricket news outlets. Czar Sports isn't the best... they have some really good content, but the site does cause some people problems from time to time. Bs1jac ( talk) 12:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Cricket Europe is the website of the European Cricket Council and thus not an independent source wrt a cricket tournament between (or with) European national teams. Perfect for reliable information, but doesn't give any notability for this tournament. Fram ( talk) 12:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

That is incorrect. Scroll to the foot of any page at Cricket Europe, click on the contact us link and it clearly states "Please note that CricketEurope is an independent cricket site". Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:02, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Indeed. Cricket Europe is NOT affiliated with ICC Europe or the ECC. Bs1jac ( talk) 11:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC) reply

There isn't anything in those sources that goes beyond regurgitating the press release by Czech Cricket [2]. Sorry. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 12:15, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

So you want a source that provides more detail than is known? Multiple independent sources feel that the event is worth announcing. Bs1jac ( talk) 12:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

The kind of coverage we should expect for an imminent notable tournament is a full tournament preview (not just reporting an announcement/press release), team/player profiles, interviews, etc. We have none of this. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 13:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Then it sounds like we need to delete hundreds/thousands of articles (e.g. 2020 Open de Rennes has no ref at all, and there are dozens of these alone per year). Back to the subject though, we seem to be stuck at the what makes an event notable impasse. If a fully sanctioned international competition is not notable, in a sport that is growing rapidly across the world, especially now that the ICC has fully acknowledged the right for the game to be recognised outside of 10-12 nations (in t20 format at least), then I really don't know what is. Elitism? Or is it just that it's a forthcoming event rather a completed event with a summary available that is the issue? Bs1jac ( talk) 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

(Ignoring WP:OTHERSTUFF again) There is no need to postulate about subversive reasons. The way we establish notability is through significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, and in this case we simply don't have that. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 15:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

(ec)To take that example: referencing in the article doesn't matter (though it would be much better if these were included), what matters is whether good sources exist. For the 2020 Open de Rennes, there is e.g. this article from France Info (TV channel) [3], which is a general news source, not a highly specialized website , and which gives more than just a regurgitated official announcement. We have articles from Le Télégramme(regional but general newspaper). We have articles in 20 minutes (France), a general newspaper aimed at the whole of France [4] [5]. And then there are the general sports magazines and sites, like Sportmag.fr [6]. All of these have more specific coverage about the tournament than what we have so far for the Central Europe Cup, and at the same time are more general sources (there are also countless tennis-only sources with info on the 2020 Rennes Open, compared to the 2 or 3 cricket-specific sites we have here, and the total lack so far of coverage in either general sources or even generic sport sources).

Notability is not decided by what the sanctioning body does, nor by how fast a sport is supposed to be growing, but by the attention general sources give it. They may be missing out on something that should get coverage, or they may represent the actual interest this sport generates in the countries involved, but in the end neither matters, we simply reflect the end result. Now, it may be that in the next few weeks, this will get the necessary coverage for an article: but it should have been created only then, not earlier. (This is less of a problem for upcoming events which have generated plenty of coverage in previous years, but for a new event or one that didn't get much attention previously, one should wait until it is truly and clearly notable, not simply presume that it will happen). Fram ( talk) 15:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Wjemather:, To clarify my understanding, you want this article to be deleted now and then created again just couple of days when the actual tournament starts or you want this to be deleted permanently? mitratanmoy 15:22 , 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Please note: the tournament starting is absolutely irrelevant, as this is not an inherently notable recurring event. If (and only if) substantial independent coverage emerges in reliable 3rd party sources later would I support an article being created/undeleted (although my preference would be for a main article in the first instance). But right now, coverage is not even close to meeting the threshold (see WP:TOOSOON & WP:NSPORTSEVENT). Further, if that main article existed, I would currently support a merge rather than deletion (or possibly moving this article and rewriting/expanding as a main article). It could also be merged into Associate international cricket in 2020–21, where most of the content seem to be duplicated already; I would support that too. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 17:37, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

FYI, that is where I had previously redirected the page after another editor created his page way too soon (before the event had even been announced other than during online streaming commentary of another event). I then recreated the page once a primary announcement was available and with secondary sources close behind. If the deletion is upheld (despite at least two valid secondary sources), that would be my preferred redirect until a later date when more details are written. At least we are being balanced and constructive now rather than making huge assumptions and/or misunderstandings. Bs1jac ( talk) 19:07, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep. International T20 tournament, meets WP:CRIN and involves the national cricket teams of several countries. As long as the status of the matches are satisfied, I'm more than happy to see this kept. StickyWicket ( talk) 09:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

CRIN is (currently) not an accepted notability guideline. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:58, 3 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep Cant find any valid reason for this page to be deleted. mitratanmoy 10:58 , 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The principal reason has been clearly expressed above – zero in-depth coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject as required by our notability guidelines. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 08:45, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

And those false claims that the sources are not independent of the subject have been debunked. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 14:56, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Selecting one aspect to refute (independence of the sources, and even then, only in relation to one of them) while disregarding the substantive argument is a classic strawman. We still have zero substantial, in-depth coverage. Anywhere. And certainly not in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 15:13, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Well that's been the crux of the argument from you and Fram, which have clearly been disproven. They are reliable and independent, which have been stated above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:17, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I can't find any indication who is behind "cricketeurope", there are no names of persons or organisations involved in it at all as far as I can see. The website is said to be the official website of European Cricket Council, but a) I can't verify (or debunk) it, and b) that organisation itself is very hard to find any info on, does it even exist any longer? So we have "Emerging cricket", a new website of unknown reliability or importance, then we have the one-person website czarsports (usually unavailable), and the rather obscure cricketeurope. That's not even adressing the lack of indepth, actual reporting, instead of rephrased announcements of what will happen. Compare this with e.g. the sources available for the 2020 Open de Rennes (example not introduced by me but discussed above), a small tennis tournament of little importance: there we have both general news sources (with actual reporting), and general sports magazines, removing the need to go to obscure sport-specific sources to try to claim some notability. If an event only gets attention in such sources, then you can hardly claim that it a notable event. Fram ( talk) 15:23, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

"I can't find any indication who is behind "cricketeurope"" - So why make false and mis-leading claim saying " Cricket Europe is the website of the European Cricket Council.. " ? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:30, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Emerging cricket isn't of unknown reliability. Many cricket boards include the Scottish or Irish one mention their coverage or retweet them. They have perhaps the best coberage of any associate cricket news. Also you claiming cricketeurope as the website of ECC is not proven and is false. Human ( talk) 18:52, 7 September 2020 (UTC) reply

It is given as the website of the ECC at our own article about it, like I said multiple times already. I thought the cricket editors would be up to date with this kind of thing, for an important organisation like the ECC, but it turns out that the ECC is not important but hardly visible or notable (does it even exist any longer), and that trusting a cricket article will only lead to scorn from cricket editors. Fram ( talk) 06:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

"It is given as the website of the ECC at our own article about it" So you used WP as your WP:RS without actually double-checking first before making a false statement. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:33, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Says the editor who added a 2015 source to this article, pretending that it was from 2020 and about this tournament...? That website has no information at all about who it is by (owned, made, supported, ...). I gave it the benefit of the doubt based on a cricket article we have, since our cricket editors are so knowledgeable and trustworthy. Apparently I have to trust your word about whicjh sites are reliable or not. Anyway, apparently CricketEurope used to be the official site of the ECC, but since the ECC no longer exists they continued on their own. Or so it seems, because, like I said, they are extremely secretive about who or what they are, which is not a good indication of being a reliable site at all. Fram ( talk) 08:00, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Just to say (and I don't claim to be in the know on this), my understanding from others is that CE at some point in history may have had some kind of partnership with ECC. I don't think they were ever the 'official site' as such, but were essentially covering their tournaments. All historic now, but thought I would mention. Bs1jac ( talk) 10:39, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Lugnuts and Fram: I think that's enough of the ad hominems. The focus needs to be on the article only, and the issue of lack of coverage to meet GNG, EVENT, etc. Even if the sources we have met some gold standard of independence and reliability, the coverage remains limited to rephrased press releases and incidental mentions. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

"apparently CricketEurope used to be the official site of the ECC" - source? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

It's irrelevant. Drop the stick or take it elsewhere. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 10:02, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

"again, another false statement"? [7] See also this one which makes it even more obvious. Fram ( talk) 10:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Yes, false. That is for cricketeurope.net, the (live) site is cricketeurope.com. Do you also still maintain the COI claims too? Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Remember when you claimed that every page of CricketEurope.com made it clear at the bottom of the page that they were an independent site? Not completely true, that claim was on the "contact us" page which you could reach from the bottom of the page. Have you actually read that contact page? "You may contact CricketEurope at office@cricketeurope.net." CricketEurope.com, CricketEurope.net, and CricketEurope4.net are all the same site. Can we please go back to discussing the merits of the article and its sources and stop this stupid timewaster? Fram ( talk) 11:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Not really wanting to get involved any more, but to be fair he did say "Scroll to the foot of any page at Cricket Europe, click on the contact us link and it clearly states" Bs1jac ( talk) 09:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply

You're right, I misread that. Struck that part now, thanks. Fram ( talk) 09:18, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Disruption of this AfD needs to stop now. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 10:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

To clarify the status of CricketEurope. (notice of self-interest here as I am part of the CE team) CricketEurope is not, nor has it ever been, the official website of any cricket organisation. It has always been editorially independent. The parent company of CricketEurope, UlsterWeb, did previously provide the official websites of the now non-existent European Cricket Council, ICC Europe and select other European national governing bodies in addition to several official tournament websites (ECC, ICC Europe and ICC). These sites were constructed using the same in-house CMS as the main CricketEurope website (and in some cases had cricketeurope URLs because their web administrators didn't do whatever they needed to do to have the URL bar show their own website domain) but were nonetheless independent from it. We have had nothing to do with ICC since 2010 and nothing to do with ICC Europe since 2013. Anyway, it's been nice reading this to remind me of why I quit contributing to Wikipedia. Have fun. Andrew nixon ( talk) 11:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for clearing that up, Andrew. So Cricket Europe is clearly independent and reliable, and not as others have claimed. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:09, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply

So, circling back to the key issue: where is the substantial coverage (that isn't just a rehash of a press release)? _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:11, 9 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The tournament as a whole is notable, but each individual instance is not. Wikipedia is not Wisden. I would encourage the participants in this AFD to be very considerably more succinct in any additional contributions they are planning to make out of courtesy to the closer. Stifle ( talk) 11:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep: and rewrite to be about the Central Europe Cup. Most of the content is already background and we could have a decent stub on the cup itself if the group stage and playoffs section are cut, so this won't be too hard at all. It seems to me that the cup itself is notable and we can have a subsection on each year, if desired. Not seeing clear notability of each year-- Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 11 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Thanks for this comment. I am considering how best to do this. I do have links to results from previous editions so could put something together if this route is agreed on. Perhaps a table showing teams that competed in each edition, and their finishing positions, etc. I do think the notability of the 2020 edition onwards (with official ICC status) will become apparent over the next few weeks when the press in at least a couple of the nations publishes either previews or summaries. Bs1jac ( talk) 19:38, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Further to this, I have almost finished a draft of Central Europe Cup via my sandbox, similar to the exiting page on the South American Cricket Championship. Would be happy to replace the content and move this page to that new title, or to create that page separately if this one should be left and deleted (not sure of the protocol); depending on consensus. Bs1jac ( talk) 21:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC) reply

Maybe wait until this is closed? Per my comments above, I'd support a move & rewrite to Central Europe Cup; articles for individual editions can then follow if sufficient substantial coverage emerges. (I've amended my !vote above accordingly) _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 08:12, 13 September 2020 (UTC) reply

I have added my proposed alternative via a commented out section at the end of the article. I think this content is at least in line with other such international tournaments such as South American Cricket Championship and more so than regional amateur domestic leagues such as Bristol & District Cricket Association and Kent Cricket League. Just trying to provide options. (also amended by vote accordingly) Bs1jac ( talk) 08:21, 13 September 2020 (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.