Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No Dada No KKR

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. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No_Dada_No_KKR

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-useful, non-notable. Dee03 (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 May 30. Snotbot t • c » 22:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
History merge to Sourav Ganguly ‣ Have to note that I can't find the original Articles for Creation discussion about this... the AfC category it was originally tagged with does not seem to contain it. This seems like important information for the article on the player but a particular group of fans for a particular cricketer that is described as simply a Facebook group in many of the sources does not seem like something that would qualify as a notable topic independent of the player himself. --▸∮truthious ᛔandersnatch◂ 23:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails a whole load of notability criteria. Can't see how such a group, despite "reliable sources" can be encyclopedic. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 18:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article doesn't establishes notability. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ ^Talk ^Email 07:54, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Surprised by the nomination and the previous edits here. Sources 3 and 4 alone look to me to be sufficient coverage in reliable sources to demonstrate notability. --Dweller (talk) 08:17, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ganguly Article as per Struthious_Bandersnatch ƬheⱾtrike Ҿagle ^™ 12:38, 2 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to SG or KKR. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{ʈ ᶏ ɭ Ϟ} 13:45, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet notability criteria. Fenopy (talk) 21:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The campaign received significant coverage from reliable sources, meeting WP:GNG. The article needs to be cleaned up but this is not a deleteable offence. Hack (talk) 01:39, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no notability. extra999 (talk) 04:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. Needs work admittedly, but so do a lot of articles. Andrew nixon (talk) 07:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Sourav Ganguly. Although you would find lot of coverage in news its not something that should have a stand-alone article. The topic is regarding Ganguly and his fans protesting, its better placed there. §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If it has a lot of coverage in news, by Wikipedia's definitions it absolutely should have a stand-alone article. --Dweller (talk) 08:12, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not always. Aishwarya Rai becomes pregnant and delivers a baby girl. Lotsa lotsa coverage for lotsa lotsa time. Do we make a separate article on that? (Thanks for the note.) §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aishwarya Rai's baby isn't an organisation. --Dweller (talk) 08:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean that you should draw some exact analogy. What i meant with the example is that not everything that's covered by news (especially when 24Hr news channels have started) is worth an article. This organisation is basically a fan-club that protested on Ganguly's exclusion from team and is now planning to throw a birthday party. That's a one line gist. Why do we need separate article for that? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 09:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If someone's created an article and it's nominated for deletion, we need to look at what our policies and guidelines say. I've not seen any arguments here that explain why this organisation fails our requirement for non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. I see at least two sources that seem to meet those requirements. --Dweller (talk) 09:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can anyone opting for merge or delete please explain why sources 3 and 4 between them are not sufficient to demonstrate WP:N? --Dweller (talk) 08:14, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's more than sufficient coverage, not incidental and not bunched up to a certain time frame to show that this passes notability. Also, if it should be merged, Ganguly shouldn't be the target, but it should be the KKR article. —SpacemanSpiff 08:16, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cited sources clearly demonstrate notability per WP:GNG. WP:IDONTCARE is not a valid reason for deletion. —chaos5023 (talk) 17:20, 6 June 2012 (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.