Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sareen Sports Industries


 * 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. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  12:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Sareen Sports Industries

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of any notability. Unreferenced and fails WP:GNG. Fame by association with players that use these Cricket bats is not notability.  Velella  Velella Talk 08:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 11:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Velella, thanks for your comments and feedback on this article and the SS Ton one. I'll try to address your concerns here. I think you mentioned two things about the Sareen article. First, that it is unsourced. I will work on that and try to address it today. Second, that the company itself is "almost certainly not notable." I disagree. To the extent that this argument holds, there are a bunch of other cricket manufacturers that have articles, like Kookaburra, which even has some bat lines that have articles. Even Sareen's main competitor, Sanspareils Greenlands, which also happens to be based in Meerut, India, has a wiki page. I'm not saying that they don't deserve pages, but if they do, then SS definitely does too. More to the point, though, I think it is unfair to say the company is not notable out of hand, even if I didn't include references in my first draft. The company's brand logo has been splayed over television screens around the world for days on end, by some of the most world's most famous players. That's what usernamekiran's comment also suggests. I know you said that that alone doesn't credit it as a notable brand, but then what does? Who are all these other random manufacturers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cricket_equipment_manufacturers), then? Suffice it to say that I'm not financially attached or otherwise biased in favor of Sareen, except in one way, which is that I like many other fans grew to love it after watching some of the most memorable moments in cricketing history. Please let me know, what you think -- and thank you again.
 * I've made some edits. If this doesn't pass the bar I'll let it go, but personally I think this page deserves to be up nased on its notability. If not, then I think that to remain consistent, the majority of the other cricket manufacturers' pages, as well as their product lines' pages, should also be brought down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Climate7298 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

-
 * The SS is definitely a very well known brand, one of the most prominent. Not sure how it fits the WP:GNG though. — usernamekiran (talk)  12:22, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 16:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Definetly passes the GNG. I went found specific articles to go along with the numerous mentions 1, 2, 3. d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  01:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * More: 4, 5 as mentioned above, they are very popular/famous and consistently rated number 1. Now some press releases, passing mention. d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  01:18, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: no new !votes in light of my evidence.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, d.g. L3X1  (distænt write)   )evidence(  12:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Coverage in several sources, albeit not especially detailed, plus multiple sources praising its quality, makes it notable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 13:07, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Thanks, all, for the feedback on this. I think that the issue around references has been addressed by L3X1 and others, and this article should stay up. I do agree that the page about the SS Ton should be merged to this one. Climate7298 (talk) 03:24, 15 June 2017 (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.