Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cricketainment

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 as a neologism. --jonny-mt 06:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cricketainment

Cricketainment (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Fails to assert notability; Possible neologism not covered up by reliable sources, so speaks rohith. 22:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, WP:NEO.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Non notable neogolism that is not present in reliable sources. Only sources are blogs and sources related to the founder. I'm an Editorofthewiki[citation needed] 00:29, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable Jasynnash2 (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -, so speaks rohith. 17:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete as nonnotable Obnoxious (talk) 23:10, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Do not delete as it is a valid article under "Sports entertainment" Category. check the articles under sports entertainment, which have similar articles. If you delete this article then all articles under that category should be deleted as well.

Gururaj 007 (talk)

  • Comment: I support creating a redirect to Indian Premier League, but I am not so convinced about the merger option. The only reason I nominated it for deletion was because I felt that it was mainly neologism. Of course, there are perfectly reliable sources, after all, neologisms get covered in the media for a specific period of time, and then die out. But is there sufficient evidence to prove that the term has entered common usage and that the subject has gained enough popularity to justify an article/section dedicated to it on Wikipedia? That is my question, so speaks rohith. 08:47, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I think that we need to draw a distinction of substance between a page and a section in another page. I fully agree with you that it doesn't merit a page both because, as I say above, I doubt that we have the content for one and, as you rightly say, it hasn't entered common usage. However, for a section different criteria apply; these are that it should be relevant and encyclopedic in the page and reliably sourced. In the context of the IPL it is in common usage and relevant and as I have shown can be reliably sourced. Consequently, I think that a short, pithy section would be useful and is all that is required. I am not sure that there is any real difference between this page being closed as a redirect or a merge; if it was closed as a redirect then someone could still add sourced content to the IPL article. Whether the content stayed in would be up to the regular editors of the IPL page which would also be the case if it was closed as merge though, perhaps, editors might be more inhibited about removing it in the latter case. HTH. Smile a While (talk) 03:26, 26 May 2008 (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.