From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (  | 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. Joseph 2302 ( 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 Joseph 2302 ( 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
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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 17:17, 26 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
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.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 (  | 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. Joseph 2302 ( 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 Joseph 2302 ( 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
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
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 17:17, 26 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
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.

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook