Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/India vs England 2007 Cricket Series


 * 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 Redirected to Indian cricket team in England in 2007, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 18:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

India vs England 2007 Cricket Series

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested PROD. An individual cricket series is not notable enough for it's own article, IMHO. TexasAndroid 12:53, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this one, keep the real one Presumably you will also nominate the real article on the Indian cricket team in England in 2007 as your nomination didn't say that this brief little stub was an unneeded duplicate, but that the series as a whole wasn't notable.  Perhaps you don't understand the major importance of a test series, nor are aware of the dozens of similar articles on Wikipedia.  This is an entirely misguided nomination and should be withdrawn ASAP if it's regarding the main cricket article on the tour.  If it's just about deleting the stub mentioned, then fair enough, it's superfluous but your reason for wanting it deleted is the wrong one. Nick mallory 13:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from presuming what I will or will not do. You have no knowledge of such, and no basis on which to make such false presumptions.  This nomination is about the listed article and nothing more.  The listed article has no sources, gives no assertion of notability, and no hint that it is supposed to be for something bigger.  The "real" article you mention has none of these failings.  I had searched for articles for other years following the naming pattern in the listed article and found none before I PRODed this yesterday.  The listed article totally fails to give any context to why the event is important, and fails to give any clues to someone like me, lacking that context, to allow me to find the context.
 * I personally would still not consider a Cricket series to be notable, but given the well sourced and referenced nature of the "real" article I would never presume to submit such an article for deletion. In such an issue of personal feelings vs the reality of the article meeting the guidelines so well, my personal feelings would definitely lose out.
 * So in the end, the nomination remains, but is indeed for only the listed article, though more because of it being a duplicate than for my original reasons. Is there any point to just redirecting the listed article to the real article, or would that be a worthless redirect? - TexasAndroid 13:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're supposed to research AfD's to save everyone this kind of pointless work. The nominated article should have been deleted because it's a pointless duplicate of the extensive article which is already written.  Your reason for nomination though is entirely invalid, such a tour absolutely is notable.  You're right in wanting it deleted, wrong in your reason.  This is important because a precedent shouldn't be set in which cricket tours are deleted. I fail to see how how failed to find the 'real' article as it's number one on google if you type England India Cricket 2007 or any similar combination.  Anyway, do you see my point here?  The best thing to do would be to immediately redirect it, which I'm sure you would have done if you'd found the proper article yesterday.  Nick mallory 13:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to walk away from this discussion. Further "woulda/coulda" discussions are just going to inflame emotions to no good end.  I think I did a decent effort (described above) to research this givent the lack of context of the sub-stub.  You disagree.  Points made on both sides and further discussion of the issue serves no purpose beyond antagonizing one or the other of us, which is to noone's benefit.  This AFD is on the linked article only, and is now because it is a duplicate.  That's what is important.  - TexasAndroid 14:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

It's redirected now so this can be closed. Nick mallory 13:56, 28 August 2007 (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.