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. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 18:58, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]


The Chauntry Cup[edit]

The Chauntry Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable sporting event. Having done a search, there's almost no independent sources about it, because it's a tournament for teams that aren't notable enough for Wikipedia, see WP:CRIN. The tournament claims to be the oldest Twenty20 tournament in the world, although there is no reliable sources that support this, and most cricket sources don't count it since it isn't a professional tournament. The only reason this article exists is because the user wants to use a Wikipedia article to get a record for the Guiness Book of Records, see here. Should be deleted, as fails WP:NCRIC, WP:GNG and WP:EVENT. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:26, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just so people know, the only reference to being the oldest T20 tournament is here, which only says that it might be. It started in 1936, but there's no reliable source saying that it's definitely the oldest. Also, it's not a professional sports competition, and doesn't have first-class or List A teams in it. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:51, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have indef-blocked Dartman: their edits were problematic enough, and the last sentence of the above paragraph is plenty of reason. If they got something to say they can say it on their talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:03, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisTheDude Firstly, it is THE OLDEST RUNNING T20 competition in the World. Secondly, it is interesting and worthy of inclusion on wiki. You are obliviously not interested in cricket or you wouldn't be anti this article. It is incredible that The Chauntry Cup drew up 20 20 rules almost 70 years before the world picked it up. That is another reason the page should remain. It is not offensive, doesn't advertise but is hugely interesting to cricket fans.
There are far less notable pages on wiki and this subject will be looked at, as long as the game of cricket continues to be playedJoanneB123 (talk) 18:22, 8 May 2015 (UTC) -- — JoanneB123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Comment @C.Fred: The mentioned article just says the cup is 80 years old, there is not a definitive source saying it is the oldest T20 tournament- it suggests it might be, but doesn't say 100% it is. Also, it's a local cricket tournament- I'm a massive cricket fan, and hadn't heard of this obscure tournament until this article was created. Apart from that article, all coverage is obscure local papers. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: You went looking for sources WP:BEFORE the AfD nomination? —C.Fred (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Fred: Yes I did, I found this one and no other references. Google searching for it just listed pages of minor league cricket teams, and all the article sources are just obscure local papers (mainly the Lichfield Mercury). As a cricket fan, I know that basically every notable (and some obscure) cricket events have coverage on either ESPN Cricinfo or Cricbuzz- the fact neither of them have any coverage, nor any British national newspapers was what made me put this up for AfD. As a cricket fan, part of me wanted this cricket to stay, but the more I looked for evidence to help it stay, the more convinced I became that there isn't any. As the article creator User:LichfieldCC said, their record isn't recognised by Guinness Book of Records, since it isn't a professional sports competition, and that's also why it's not notable enough for Wikipedia. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:46, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -But Wiki rules state it must be interesting and it is. It says nothing about The Guinness Book of Records deciding what goes on Wiki. It will be featured on Sky Sports News at the start of the "professional" T20 blast next week. It will also be on their website if it isn't alreadyDartman1001 (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2015 (UTC)— Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If it makes the Sky Sports website, I'm willing to look at that and reconsider if there's in-depth coverage that would meet WP:GNG. But until/unless that happens, the coverage isn't out there. —C.Fred (talk) 19:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not currently on Sky Sports, I checked that carefully after it wasn't on Cricinfo or Cricbuzz. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:14, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just so people know, it still hasn't made Sky Sports News website. I haven't seen the documentary that's meant to be on Sky Sports News today, but it's not necessarily going to be notable- Sky Sports cricket make lots of short programmes about club cricket teams and matches, and none of them seem very notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP It's a deal. If it's not on Sky Sports News next week, you can delete it. I won't bother adding any more until after that. I feel very sorry for you. You want to delete the very start of 20 over cricket in the world because you feel like it. That just makes no sense for Wiki. You are making Wiki a sterile environment where people won't bother to bring interesting subjects, hitherto unnoticed to the world.Dartman1001 (talk) 19:23, 8 May 2015 (UTC)— Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

You have perfectly encapsulated there why the article should be deleted. As per WP:N, Wikipedia is for things which have already received in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. If a subject is "hitherto unnoticed to the world" then it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability requirements....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPChrisTheDudeWiki rules state it must be interesting. It is. Not every article on wiki can even say that. You say "hitherto unnoticed to the world". Most of the stuff on wiki is the same. There are tens of thousands of pages less notable on here. It has received in depth coverage and that will become more in depth as I research it for you. By the time I've finished, every cricket fan will have heard of it. There are only 3 of you who want to delete it because you all stick together. I wouldn't expect any less. In fact, I fully expect, because all three of your arguments fail, that you will call on your mates to blitz this area. One of you even admitted it WAS INTERESTING and still put it for deletion. I doubt there are many articles that meet ever wiki criteria for inclusion. The only thing I can say for certain is that it IS INTERESTING AND IS UNUSUAL ENOUGH TO DESERVE ATTENTION AND TO BE RECORDED. None of you have managed to argue against these Wiki rules for inclusion so it MUST BE KEPT. Dartman1001 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)— Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Fair enough. I will keep finding reasons for it to stay but here's a wiki page I randomly pulled out. Martin Dohlsten. Why is his page worthy of a Wiki page, if the Chauntry Cup isn't?Dartman1001 (talk) 22:54, 10 May 2015 (UTC)— Dartman1001 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This argument is definitely WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, and therefore isn't a good argument, but I'll answer anyway. Some things on Wikipedia have inherent notability, and so are automatically accepted- so all footballers who have played in a fully professional league, as are all cricketers who've played in a first-class or List A match ever. That person is notable because they played professional football, and so lots of reliable sources will exist about them. As discussed previously, the Chauntry Cup does not- if it were notable, then I'd expect sources on at least some of the places I mentioned above. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't even looked anywhere really. I have seen the Lichfield Mercury's archive for about 4 years during the war. Many brave Australian and New Zealand airmen, who also played first class cricket, participated in the Cup during the war years. It would be a wicked betrayal of their bravery, to simply delete the leisure pursuit that helped them, cope with the fear and danger of what they had to endure through the war, to keep our world free, for wiki to even exist. I searched on google but only the top few pages, for references to the Chauntry Cup. I'm going to start looking further. I wrote to Robin Marlar recently, who wrote the illustrated history of cricket but he hasn't replied yet. While he was MCC President, he was asking for anyone with information about the origins of T20. I would expect him to fully support my claim as he played in The Junior Chauntry Cup as a lad, in the 1940's.Dartman1001 (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC) As it states on other stuff exists, arguments can be valid or invalid. In this case it is valid. If Martin Dohlsten's pages exits, so should mine.[reply]

KEEPThere is no reason to delete The Chauntry Cup. There are similar cricket comptetions on Wiki like Bolton Cricket LeagueJoanneB123 (talk) 10:13, 11 May 2015 (UTC)— JoanneB123 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Bolton Cricket isn't notable enough either, WP:CRIC says that in England, the notable leagues are professional ones, and those designated as ECB Premier Leagues. A competition between obscure club cricket teams, not affiliated with the ECB, does not meet this criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Amazing to find this article on the Chauntry Cup, which is well-known and respected in my part of the Midlands and indeed I turned out for my local village back in the 60's (with very limited success!) As I understand it, you want to remove this article because some of you have never heard of it? It doesn't seem to be doing any harm, and may in fact help to establish the claim of being the worlds oldest T20 competition. I find the argument that it is not a professional competition strange - there is (or certainly used to be) a village cricket competition each year that had a final at Lords, and when the Olympic Games were revived in Much Wenlock in the 1850's that amateur competition is credited in Wikipedia. The fact that Sky Sports have shown an interest already is encouraging, so why would you feel it necessary to squash the article? Normandoe — Normandoe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Interesting to see someone edit for the first time in 9 years to promote this. It's not a vote people. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 11 May 2015 (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.
More