Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vinoo Mankad Trophy


 * 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. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Vinoo Mankad Trophy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Under-19 domestic cricket tournament, which fails the inclusion of WP:CRIN. Under-19 domestic tournaments have been determined to be non-notable below international level. These matches do not hold List A status as the editor claims. I have a sneaking suspicion the editor is trying to pass this tournament off as the Vijay Hazare Trophy, which meets WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  D Big X ray ᗙ  10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT as far as WP:CRIN is concerned, it is already discussed and we have a consensus on WikiProject Cricket#Extend WP:CRIN to include competitions that pass GNG and NSPORT. This book lists out 6 of the important cricket trophies in India and mentions it as national championship for Under 19 age players. (more to be added) -- D Big X ray ᗙ  10:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment would that consensus be in your head by any chance? I see no such consensus. Perhaps you are the senate? StickyWicket (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment in continuation of the above, This cricket tournament is the highest U19 Domestic level trophy played among the states and organized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India and every match is covered by main stream Indian media and newspapers throughout the country.             -- D Big X ray ᗙ  14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't think the discussion referred to above has reached a consensus. I also deleted a load of refs from the article as it seemed to be a WP:REFBOMB. I was going to add them in here to allow others to judge if they prove notability, but I see has added them already (whilst there are lots of them, many seem to be WP:ROUTINE) Spike &#39;em (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Spike, none of these sources from Mainstream media in India are tabloid or promotional coverage, so your doubts of WP:ROUTINE does not apply to these sources. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   10:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: A lot of sources have been presented herein, but thus far, little analysis of them has occurred. Hence the third relisting.
 * Delete: Fails WP:CRIN. I would prefer keeping only if there is wider consensus to create articles on such subjects. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Naming a trophy after a notable cricketer in itself does not make the tournament notable.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 09:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Almost every cricket tournament is named after another famous cricketer, but that is not the point being made here. Article are kept on the notability of their subject (the tournament here) none of the sources I shared above, talk about the "notable cricketer" but instead talk about this tournament. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  11:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per . We don't need to throw GNG level coverage, (accumulated over years), to the trash to accomodate with a shitty guideline that was thought by a few project-regulars and is implemented with a thorough disregard to common-sense, in a bot-like fashion.I find it ridiculous that the same folks over here who are proposing to delete this were !voting en-masse to keep an article with practically non-existent sourcing, just because it suited their whims aka pet guideline. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
 * And, what happened to alternatives to deletion? At the very minimum, this can be easily merged somewhere, even if treating NCRIC as a commandment. &#x222F; WBG converse 09:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment In continuation of my keep vote above, adding some more sources (from past 2 weeks, since the AfD) from the Mainstream media in India which are giving a consistent and regular coverage of this tournament.           -- D Big X ray ᗙ  12:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Very weak keep - essentially I'm undecided here so I'd rather see the article kept for now and the wider scope of articles such as these discussed first.
 * There is, without doubt, plenty of coverage of the tournament, but all of the referencers we've been given seem to fulfil the definition of WP:ROUTINE - i.e. passing mentions of the tournament in the context of match reports rather than in depth articles about the tournament itself. I suspect the same is true of at least some of the first-class or List A tournaments that we have articles on - we don't have much in the way of in depth references about the Logan Cup or the Ford Trophy (cricket) for example. And we do have articles on subjects such as the Second Eleven Championship, the Minor Counties Championship and the Women's County Championship.
 * I'm not sure that WP:CRIN, WP:ATHLETE or WP:ORG really deal with sports leagues at all for what it's worth. Per the GNG I'd prefer that sources were more in depth and dealt specifically with the competition, but if we do that then I think we can't draw a distinction between under-19 competitions, second XI competitions or even first XI competitions where there is little or no detailed coverage. Which is why I tend to think that either WP:CRIN needs to be written in such a way as to include leagues or we need to think about which leagues are actually properly notable and how we go about showing that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * All these mainstream national newspapers would not be covering the tournament if its non notable. There is no "One rule for all country" for Baseball. Several baseball tournaments are notable in USA but a similar tournament in other country may not be notable. The coverage in the reliable national media is a perfectly valid scale to gauge the notability in such circumstances. Some of the Delete votes above based on outdated WP:CRIN are akin to saying "Such tournaments are non notable in England, so we have a Policy CRIN that will be applied to all countries, even if it is clearly notable in India and people + Media care about it."-- D Big X ray ᗙ  15:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * As I say, I am generally undecided here, but no matter what else applies, there is no doubt in my mind that the coverage meets the definition of WP:ROUTINE and I would prefer if there were in depth sources discussing the competition. Those sources may well exist - I tend to think that they're likely to given the context.
 * Fwiw, my reference to British competitions should be seen as support for this article given that at present we have little more than routine coverage of those competitions cited in the relevant articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2018 (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.