Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangla Tigers

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:44, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bangla Tigers

[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)

Non notable team of a minor tournament. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. Other teams in the tournament doesn't have articles. Human (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Human (talk) 09:20, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 13:34, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:CRIN notability guidelines and the tournament itself is of dubious notability; the less T10 stuff we have on here the better. StickyWicket (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @AssociateAffiliate: Don't jump to conclusions about the tournament. It is notable enough to have multiple seasons articles without having deleted once. And it has approved by ICC. Human (talk) 23:52, 1 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't official cricket, just a hit and giggle. Pay people enough and they will come and play it, doesn't make it a notable form of cricket or the tournament notable. It's played in a non-full member and doesn't have any official status. Lugnuts list of official cricket matches is fair and where our focus should lie. StickyWicket (talk) 08:30, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @AssociateAffiliate: Still it shouldn't be deleted just like that. In that case all seasons should be deleted. It already produced three season artticles without much objection. Also the Hundred or whatever that thing is called is having an article. Lets just focus on the matter in hand and not divert away from this AfD. Human (talk) 01:02, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't even get me started on The Hundred, I'd like to see that speedily deleted from all existence!!!! It's no reflection on you by the way, I think you're an excellent editor who has really helped the cricket project this year :) StickyWicket (talk) 19:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the conversation I would prefer to not close as SOFTDELETE (which would be current consensus). Relisting to see if firmer consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems to be a not unreasonable amount of coverage, so maybe just about passes WP:GNG, etc. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:28, 18 October 2020 (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.