Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ball tampering controversy in fourth Oval Test v Pakistan


 * 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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)   13:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Ball tampering controversy in fourth Oval Test v Pakistan
Unfinished article which was possibly pasted from some site (notice the source reference mark which was also pasted) on a recent cricket controversy. Possible copyvio, junk article on non-notable subject --Mecanismo | Talk 14:53, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete without prejudice against re-creation. Not a copy-vio, but it is copy-pasted from Ball tampering. This does seem to be a notable (albeit very recent) incident, but I think it's covered perfectly well in the Ball tampering article. If any substantial new material is added in the course of the AFD, I'll change my vote to keep. Irongargoyle 15:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. See here for coverage of the incident. Irongargoyle 15:14, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * keep, probably the biggest controversy in World Cricket since the 'bodyline' issue in the 1930s. Markb 15:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * So why have no sources at all been cited, either in this discussion or in the article? Uncle G 15:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Some good citations here, here, here, and here. I'd re-write the article myself, but I know nothing about cricket. Irongargoyle 15:59, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Already covered at Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 and at ball tampering. Uncle G 15:44, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep probably the biggest controversy in World Cricket since the 'bodyline' issue in the 1930s. Doctor Bruno 18:26, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete current version, per Irongargoyle. Already quite adequately covered. Sam Vimes | Address me 19:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Irongargoyle. --ⁿɡ͡b Nick Boalch \ talk 19:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006. It's also covered at ball tampering and Darrell Hair. I don't think it needs its own article. Stephen Turner (Talk) 19:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Of course, the page needs a thorough re-write, some sources and much expansion, but then what pages don't? This is a huge issue in the world of cricket - comparable to Bodyline or the match-fixing scandal with Cronje et al. a few years back - and deserves its own article. Batmanand | Talk 20:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems big at the moment, but with hindsight I don't think it will be as big as either of the two you name. Certainly not Bodyline, which led to significant changes in the rules. Does the match-fixing scandal have its own article? Stephen Turner (Talk) 20:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * This incident may lead to changes in the ball tampering rules, changes in the match forfeiture rules, and will definitely lead to changes in umpire-team relations. The match-fixing scandal does not have its own article, but IMO it should. Batmanand | Talk 20:37, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * There have been match-fixing scandals going back to the 18th century. What is so important about the latest one?  Ball tampering has happened before too.  This whole incident is a current news item that will be forgotten in less than a year.  --BlackJack | talk page 12:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * How many test matches have been forfeited so far in the History of CricketDoctor Bruno 01:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep (and rename please!): anything cricket-related covered by the U.S. news is notable. -Acjelen 22:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, because there is nothing here that other articles won't or don't already cover. If, in time, it turns out to be as big an issue as Bodyline then there may be a need for a separate article, but this isn't it, and it won't take too much to write something that overtakes this rather puny effort. Johnlp 23:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup as notable incident. Alternatively, we should redirect people as to where they will find information on the incident. Capitalistroadster 03:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect/delete, the weaker content fork. Easier to delete or merge it now than later. If editors of Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 wish to split the section, that would be fine. --Vsion 04:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete and merge with Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006. This is very topical and if no activity is seen in the article then it will lose relevance quickly. - Parthi 04:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Deletion and merger are mutually exclusive. Please choose one or the other. Uncle G 12:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Barely notable.-Kmaguir1 05:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Redirect if you wish. GizzaChat  &#169; 11:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - already covered by other articles particularly Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 which is the definitive article on this tour. Not worth merging.  But I would point out to those with no knowledge of the world's second most popular sport (after soccer) that it most certainly is notable.  --BlackJack | talk page 12:53, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the minimal content can be merged elsewhere, such as Ball tampering or Pakistani cricket team in England in 2006 (like Bodyline and Match fixing, we don't need separate articles on each individual incident). In any event, this title is useless - if we need a separate article, it should be somewhere like Ball tampering in the Fourth Test between England and Pakistan at The Oval in 2006. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Stephen Turner and BlackJack. A redirect would be useful if the name were sensible, but it isn't. JPD (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 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.