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. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 00:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge While the article needs to be sourced and edited to remove some of the opinion, this subject is definitely notable. (Just because you haven't heard of something . . .) See, for example here or here. I would guess it is at least as famous among English speaking people as, say the 2001 American League Championship Series in major league baseball. The page could be merged with the existing article Australian cricket team in India in 2000-01, which already has a paragraph on this subject, but it is arguably notable enough to have its own article. In any event, the claim of non-notablity is just wrong. --Dlduncan2 (talk) 22:20, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete The information is presented from a NPOV in the above link. This is more an essay than an article and is unsourced. Thanks, Genius101Guestbook 22:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Heavily biased essay about a non-notable sports match. We don't have articles on every game ever played. ReykYO! 00:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a strawman argument. Who is claiming we should have an article about every game ever played? Some Tests are more significant than others, this is one of the more significant. -- Mattinbgn\talk 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it was tidied and sourced I would be quite comfortable keeping this article. See Second Test, 2007–08 Border-Gavaskar Trophy for another example of a single match. This Test is certainly as much more notable as that one. The Sydney is mainly notable for whining about the umpires rather than the match itself. -- Mattinbgn\talk 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has historic notability, as can be seen by looking for sources more than a year after the event. The match "set a world record for squandering a first-innings lead to lose a Test" (The Independent, 2003)[1]; it was a "historic Test match" (Sydney Morning Herald, 2003)[2]; "the famous Kolkata Test of 2001" (The Age, 2007)[3]; "the memorable 2001 Kolkata Test match" (news.com.au, 2008)[4]; the "Miracle of Calcutta" (The Times (South Africa), 2008)[5]; "stunning turnaround" (The Jamaica Observer, 2004)[6]; "Dravid and Laxman inspired one of the greatest comebacks" (BBC, 2003)[7]; "a famous victory" (The Age, 2003)[8] and many more found by a Google News search. None of these articles was written in the immediate aftermath of the events, so WP:NOT#NEWS doesn't apply. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable. Yes, the article needs improving, but that should happen now people's attention has been drawn to it. JH (talk page) 08:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Needs to be referenced but it was a very notable Test match and plenty of information is available to expand it into a significant article. If this is deleted for notability reasons then surely The Miracle at the Meadowlands and The Epic in Miami must also be ditched?. Jevansen (talk) 15:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Clearly a very notable match that stands on its own. It has been cleaned up, and can now easily be expanded in line with other notable Test matches, and well referenced. wjematherbigissue 15:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger's sources and Mattinbgn's improvements. Salih(talk) 15:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable match and now much-improved article Johnlp (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is one of the most famous and dramatic test matches in recent history, a match which has any number of third party sources attesting to its significance. Ignorance of cricket as a game and this match's place in its history is no reason to delete this article. Nick mallory (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, no question at all. Phil Bridger, above, has proved that it has had very substantial coverage in mainstream press long after the match itself was over. It was the third time in well over a century of Test matches (more than 1,500 games) that a side had won after following-on, and coming against an Australian team that had won a then-unprecedented 16 Test matches in a row makes it more notable still. Jevansen refers to a couple of American football articles; this cricket match could (and perhaps should) easily be written about at that sort of length. If this cricket match is not notable, then neither is The Rumble in the Jungle, the White Horse Final or indeed almost any individual sporting event. Loganberry (Talk) 15:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep, I'm always amused when Americans take it upon themselves to decree cricket-related articles as "non notable". As can be shown above from the volume of material that has been written in independent sources about this game, this was an especially notable and important test match, and I believe it's time to snow close this AfD. Lankiveil(speak to me) 01:59, 11 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. We shouldn't have articles on every match and game in history (that's what Wisden is for), but we should have articles on matches that the media specifically calls 'historic' and which creates multiple world records in the particular sport. --Clay Collier (talk) 04:13, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As a cricket fan myself, I am loath to support deletion of a cricket article but, if you consider what this "article" was like when BlindEagle found it, you have to say he was entirely justified in asking for it to be deleted. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong reason because if he had done a quick search he would have found that it is a notable subject. It should have been speedily deleted because it was frankly an abysmal article put there by an abysmal editor. This is the original version, with no references or linkages:
Kolkata Test Match is arguably one of the best test matches ever played since the birth of test cricket. It was played from March 16-20 at Eden Gardens, Kolkata in which India halted Australia's 16 successive test victories, a record by any team. The test match is famous for Laxman and Dravid's scintillating batting performance on Day 4 of the test match. Having been trailed by more than 250 runs in the first innings, Dravid and Laxman saw India build up substantial lead of 384 in the second innings having batted through out Day 4 of the test match scoring 333 runs.
Absolute rubbish. Needless to say, look at it now and you wouldn't recognise it. But the point here is that a lot of genuine editors have once again gone to a lot of trouble because of some clown making a point in a very poor way. --Orrelly Man (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No point in blaming the user who started the article. He may be a newbie and must have acted in good faith. Salih(talk) 14:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Try living in the real world for a change. The person who acted in good faith was the nominator who was rightly trying to rid the site of cretinous garbage but unfortunately chose the wrong reason to delete and upset the cricket project by saying a famous match is not notable. Why must we always have the Blairite politically correct syndrome coming along with fatuous nonsense about protecting "the newbie"? Hasn't it occurred to you that "the newbie" is yet another troll or, at best, some semi-literate twerp with a WP:POINT to make who chooses to ignore site conventions? Get real. --Orrelly Man (talk) 18:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It can very well be a 'semi-literate' fellow, who found it surprising that an article on this important test match does not exist in wikipedia and decided to write a few lines on it. It was his only edit so far, and I feel grateful to him for his endeavors. How many of us wrote well-referenced stuffs in our very first edit?--GDibyendu (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2009 (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.