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. Sandstein 08:15, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2016 United Arab Emirates Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament

[edit]

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

Under-19 WC is notable but can't see other practice cups notable too. Fails WP:GNG. Greenbörg (talk) 14:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all All fail WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Lepricavark (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete U19 tournaments, apart from the U19 World Cup, don't usually meet the notability requirements. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – I'm a little confused by the !votes above to be honest. WP:GNG asks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". ESPNcricinfo, which is clearly both reliable and independent of the subject provides five news articles on the 2016 United Arab Emirates Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament, six news articles on the 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament and seven for the 2015 Sri Lanka Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament. WP:GNG defines significant coverage as being "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Multiple news articles, clearly meets the definition of significant coverage provided. The articles clearly meet the notability requirements mentioned by Lugnuts in the specific guideline cited by Joseph2302 and Greenbörg. Harrias ^talk 08:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow time for analysis of sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources provided above, which show that WP:GNG is met. Smartyllama (talk) 18:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These small cricket tournaments have dubious notability. Delete them all. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For me I am on the fence here as the keep do have good points with Cricinfo being a realible source but then you have the delete side where this is doesn't meet the notability requirements so for me I will be staying on the fence for this one. Matt294069 is coming 03:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Except that those suggesting that it doesn't meet the notability guidelines are simply incorrect, as I demonstrated. Joseph2302 simply stated "All fail WP:GNG", but I set out the specific requirements of the WP:GNG, and showed how the articles met them. Harrias ^talk 10:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cricinfo covered these matches is not "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources". Apart from Cricinfo, it's got no coverage. This it fails WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:44, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all Nomination fails WP:BEFORE. The 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation has significant coverage in more than just ESPNcricinfo, for example: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10]. These six newspapers include Bangladesh's largest English-language newspaper and two major Indian news services (IANS and PTI). Considering this, 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament plainly meets WP:GNG. Without searching in as much detail, the same appears to be true for the other two - reliable news organizations in the competing countries covered the event in sufficient detail for us to be able to write a complete encyclopedia article. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Worldbruce (talk) 00:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 03:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will prefer to keep 2015 Sri Lanka Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament but still go for delete for 2015 India Under-19 Tri-Nation tournament. Afghans and Bangladeshis U-19 can't be notable. Greenbörg (talk) 13:24, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per coverage identified by User:Worldbruce. Those voting "delete" need to explain how this significant and independent coverage doesn't push this tournament past the WP:GNG. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:14, 5 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Keep all sources provided by User:Worldbruce indicate there is enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Pratyush (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2017 (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.