Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Super 8 Twenty20 Cup

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. While various different policies and guidelines were referenced in the discussion, but with relatively minimal participation and limited analysis of sourcing (in English or other languages) with three relistings a consensus has not formed. Goldsztajn (talk) 12:40, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Super 8 Twenty20 Cup

[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)

Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Pakistan. Vestrian24Bio 05:17, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:22, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Super 8 T20 Cup was much more selective than the National T20 Cup, had T20 status, and was the precursor of the Pakistan Super League. Pakistani publications regularly covered it while the event was ongoing ([1], [2], [3], [4]), and I'm sure there must be some offline coverage of it in almanacs. Since Wikipedia also functions as an almanac (WP:5P1), we must cover T20 matches as part of our almanac coverage.

The tournament was definitely notable, but I'm not sure about the individual seasons that were not nominated. In any case, the matches held in those seasons shoulde be part of our almanac coverage. You could request a merge and renaming of those seasons so that they resemble maybe in the form of 2011 season in Pakistani cricket, and so on, and add those matches there, but it is not for WP:AFD to decide. Please initiate a WP:RFC on WP:CRIC, so that all members are on the same page and we do not have selective purges due to the lack of WP:AFD participation. Veldsenk (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches (International cricket in 2010–11) but articles for domestic cricket are still missing. Veldsenk (talk) 12:20, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 02:32, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the point about the almanac is a good one from Veldsenk. This article also is notable when factoring Pakistani sources in addition. Which is permissible. Iljhgtn (talk) 02:55, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Veldsenk and Iljhgtn: see WP:OSE, which is an argument to avoid in afd, but that's what you're doing here. Vestrian24Bio 15:02, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly? You cite WP:OSE, which states, "The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist..." Neither of us were making arguments on the grounds of "...whether other articles do or do not exist...", but were instead arguing in support of a Keep based in part on WP:5P1. @Veldsenk might have more to add? Iljhgtn (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"We already act like an almanac for international cricket matches" - which is part WP:OSE.

WP:5P1 also includes WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Vestrian24Bio 13:30, 7 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 19:14, 12 April 2025 (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.