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. The Delete views appear to be based on P&G, while the Keep views, even ignoring the canvassing, come across as weaker. Owen× ☎ 23:24, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Legends Cricket Trophy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tournament featuring ex-professional players. These matches are solely for exhibition purposes and carry no official status. Because ex-professionals are playing does not mean notability is inherited. The tournament has no lasting impact. Coverage is simply routine, so fails wider WP:GNG, in addition to WP:NCRIC. AA (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it falls under the same deletion rationale:

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, Cricket, and Sri Lanka. AA (talk) 17:20, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This reads as the nominator not liking the existence of this just because the ICC or BCCI didn't give a blessing to it. Covered by proper sources as an event all its own, older players are allowed to participate in tourneys with professionals at their equal, and I see no true reason for deletion. Nate • (chatter) 23:43, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Must have missed the parts where I cite WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:GNG, and WP:NCRIC as reasons. Nothing to do with me "not liking it". Such a poorly considered response. The sources are WP:ROUTINE and do nothing to establish notability or override NCRIC. We are not an indiscriminate collection of cricket articles. AA (talk) 15:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NCRIC doesn't mention anything about cricket tournaments. So, it is illogical to link to that policy. Robo^Cric Let's chat 09:54, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OFFCRIC does. Seems little point in that list having been created if people go about creating tournaments not featured on it anyway. AA (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This article's editor added it to the OFFCRIC list in advance, then brought it to talk a month after, likely to have someone examine whether it meets that standard or not. Nobody has actually responded, so nominating this rather than responding to their concerns reads as dirty pool to me. The editor met all of the basic good faith standards before and after, and the vote! below from Arnav should be disqualified as nobody actually specified it as non-notable. Nate • (chatter) 00:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That isn't quite how AfD works! The editor posted these on the cricket project talk page and concerns were raised by myself and other editors about their notability, but these concerns were not addressed by the editor. After a few days of having not responded/addressed concerns, this article was nominated. AA (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't discussion, it's just you and another editor dismissing any discussion out of hand then just saying 'here's the AfD nom link, good luck Vikas' (38 hours≠a few days). Every single bit of this nomination reads as ignoring the article editor because it doesn't meet your mercurial standards (which going by your talk page, dismisses North American ICC-licensed cricket as being played by 'Asian and West Indies Rejects'). My good faith in this nom declines with each response to my concerns. Nate • (chatter) 23:47, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my personal thoughts toward ICC members, who take the pee with receiving ICC funds but never developing their own players or encourage the sports growth, are relevant here. AA (talk) 19:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Case rested; no further response needed. No WikiProject should have a 'purity test' about how specifically professional or sanctioned an event needs to be to qualify under a certain criteria because of one overriding personal opinion, and I continue to ask that the below vote! be respectfully struck. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This tournament has been specified to be non-notable in WP:OFFCRIC. Arnav Bhate (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OFFCRIC is a depreciated guideline, the real question is whether it passes WP:GNG or not. That being said, GNG is tighter than those guidelines that suggest it is unlikely to be notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it is deprecated, then it should be mentioned on the page. Also, I don't think it meets WP:GNG so my vote will still be delete. Arnav Bhate (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks to fail WP:GNG as I'm not seeing any coverage outside of usual player announcements. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 11:57, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG as coverage is WP:ROUTINE, and WP:NOTINHERITED clearly applies here- just because some notable players are involved, that doesn't make the tournament automatically notable, the event needs to demonstrate it passes GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficient coverage about the tournament is available apart from routine player announcements. [1], [2], [3] and many more can be found at [4]. It meets WP:GNG. Robo^Cric Let's chat 09:52, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Upon clicking on some of those links we are met with "Legends Cricket Trophy: Schedule, Venue, Teams, Live Streaming Info", "All You Need To Know About Legends Cricket Trophy 2024's New 90-Ball Format"... if these are what is deemed signficiant coverage, it's a pretty low bar to establish notability and only devalues our cricket coverage. AA (talk) 10:09, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with this. [5] looks like a regurgitated press release, as over 50% of the article is quotes by organisers. [6] just explains how the competition works, rather than significant content about the 2024 event specifically. This is true of many other sources like [7], and so none of this coverage is significant. [8] also reads like a regurgitated press release too, with some routine coverage of the draft. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The actual tournament has not even started yet, so of course most of it is going to be repetitive 'here are the teams, here are the sites, here are the match times' type of sourcing, which is hardly disqualifying. We've got an extra week, so now we can see where the sources fall once the tournament starts and just isn't lists on a website any longer. Nate • (chatter) 18:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 event is also listed at this AFD and that doesn't have any coverage beyond that either. "It hasn't started yet" isn't a reason to keep, it's a possible reason to draftspace as WP:TOOSOON. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I was canvassed to participate in this discussion by User:RoboCric. I want this to be noted, and also that I am purposely not contributing or !voting in this discussion. JMWt (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting us know JMWt, turns out that three other editors were also canvassed, so if they appear here, their !votes should probably be tagged with ((canvassed)) to be weighted accordingly. Left guide (talk) 03:01, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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.