Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Street Premier League


 * 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 keep‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. No consensus that this is a cricket tournament. However, there is general consensus that the topic meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) asilvering (talk) 21:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Indian Street Premier League

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Non-notable cricket 'tournament'. Besides being played with tennis balls (???), it fails WP:GNG, WP:LASTING, WP:EVENT, and WP:NCRIC. In removing the PROD, the removing editor claims that because Sachin Tendulkar backs it, this makes it notable. Notability isn't inherient simply because someone famous backs it. If Tendulkar backed the local donkey derby, it still wouldn't be notable. AA (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Here is a copy of the comments I (the removing editor) made on that talk page: I disagree with the proposal for deletion. The tournament has the backing of Sachin Tendulkar, a major cricket figure, and backing from major Bollywood stars, so it seems rather notable. lists Tendulkar as an "Investor and Core Committee Member" of the tournament. Additionally, the sums of money involved ($150 million have been spent to own the six teams in the competition) are significant.
 * However, I am only mentioning some arguments for keeping the article; I am not voting or formally opposing the deletion of this article. GreekApple123 (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports,  and Cricket. AA (talk) 19:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC) *
 * Keep - lots of coverage in Indian media. Also some in international media 1 JMWt (talk) 20:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 22:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Best I could suggest is WP:TOOSOON. No visible coverage of what appears to be an amateur showcase outside of India apart from Wisden, the Cricket trade rag. Most of the articles seem to be a rehash of the original press release. The mention of $150M above is elusive. Recreate if it takes off MNewnham (talk) 03:19, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * With regards to the "$150M", the sources use the phrasing in the original currency of "₹1,165 crore". For example, . GreekApple123 (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete Does look to be a case of WP:TOOSOON, while there is some coverage, at the moment I'm not sure it is of WP:GNG nature. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 12:01, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete or * Draftify. Future event, not yet taken place. If Dratfified, recommend usage of more reliable media sources than what is currently on the page and there is lot of elusory segments on the page without any sources. RangersRus (talk) 14:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC) Update: Page has been edited since my vote but there is still room for improvement. I am sure more coverage will be forthcoming principally after the event goes live, that would help enhance this page. RangersRus (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep Has attracted "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" such as Times of India, Economic Times, Outlook India, The Hindu, Indian Express and Economic Times confirming bids over $200 million USD. This is just a selection. Simply because a topic has primarily received coverage in India does not mean it fails notability requirements. It is inconceivable to imagine a British or American article nominated for deletion with this level of coverage. AusLondonder (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * It would be, because it's nonsense. Simply because it's in India, isn't relevant. Our coverage aligns largely to the ICC definition of official cricket. AA (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a case of I don't like it. The GNG applies project-wide. The event has achieved "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". AusLondonder (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: An assessment of the sources presented here would be more helpful than debating which cricket guideline is the most relevant. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen&times; &#9742;  20:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:NCRIC is a policy for cricketers and umpires, it has no mention of cricket tournaments. So, it is illogical to link NCRIC in this nomination and I can't understand why the nominator did it. The nominator seems to be obsessed with nominating TOURNAMENT articles for deletion which do not fall under WP:OFFCRIC. However, unfortunately OFFCRIC is not an official policy or guideline. There is sufficient coverage in independent sources, pass WP:GNG as already mentioned by some previous users. RoboCric Let's chat  16:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And just like with the other nomination, the references do little to generate notability. Many are press releases and schedule, for example we have another "ISPL T-10 2024: Schedule, Teams, and More"... how is that nothing but REFBOMB? I think we have very different ideas of what constitutes decent sourcing and what doesn't. We should not be an indiscriminate collection of articles every time a 'hit and giggles' competition is launched in India. Quality, not quantity. AA (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment - it seems to me that the issue regarding the ICC official definition of cricket isn't relevant because Other Types of Cricket Exist. We have Tape ball cricket and Tennis ball cricket both of which are unofficial but have (for example in Pakistan) an enthusiastic following. The only question we should be addressing is whether this tournament meets the GNG not whether it meets the standards of the cricket purists. FWIW I see the WP:TOOSOON argument but this seems to me to reject a considerable volume of Indian media coverage as fluff. It seems like even if it was decided that the GNG wasn't met that moving to draft would at least give the opportunity to see if it was more than a brief flash-in-the-pan. JMWt (talk) 14:00, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "but this seems to me to reject a considerable volume of Indian media coverage as fluff" - that sounds a bit like WP:GEOBIAS... AusLondonder (talk) 14:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Weak keep there does seem to be decent enough coverage to just about pass WP:GNG, even if what's being played is barely cricket. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep The Economic Times, Webdunia, The Sporting News, Free Press Grail, and ANI combine to a reasonably solid GNG pass just from sources in the article. and there seem to be some more sources coming in over the course of the deletion discussion, for instance this Hindustant Times piece published today, about the first game. Also, it being cricket or not is completely irrelevant, and coverage being just in India is also perfectly valid. Rusalkii  (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2024 (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.