Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024–25 Jay Trophy

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. Despite a discussion open for three weeks, there's very limited source analysis. Arguments for keep do at least point to sourcing and delete arguments were somewhat weak since assertions of routine coverage or lack of significant coverage without actual analysis cannot be given much weight. It's also made further inconclusive as the merge contribution implies there is material worth retaining. As such, all sides even each other out. Goldsztajn (talk) 08:53, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

2024–25 Jay Trophy

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

2024–25 Jay Trophy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Vestrian24Bio 04:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cricket, and Nepal. Vestrian24Bio 04:19, 7 March 2025 (UTC)
• Keep Have coverage in regional languages and reliable sources can be in any language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godknowme1 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  Not on Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Only WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 07:56, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Vestrian24Bio What on earth is this sentence fragment supposed to mean? Are you implying that reliable sources cannot be in any language? Toadspike [Talk] 19:22, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Toadspike: re-worded now. Vestrian24Bio 02:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. No case has been made why the existing sources are insufficient.

Cortador (talk) 06:20, 14 March 2025 (UTC)

• Selective merge to Jay Trophy and delete. No evidence that the competition merits season by season articles. Wikipedia is not a sports/cricket almanac, or a mirror of external cricket databases. Not a useful redirect or search term so can be deleted after merge of encyclopedic content. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:38, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep : Keeping will be good since there is coverage for this season.Godknowme1 (talk) 00:53, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  There is an abundance of coverage of non-notable local amateur leagues. Routine sports coverage isn't enough to justify season-by-season articles. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:05, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

  @Godknowme1 Stop commenting twice, double votes are not allowed. You also did the same thing in another discussion. You know very well that vote stacking is not permissible at all. I am striking your second vote. Robo^Cric Let's chat 10:13, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

  I already apologized for that I don’t know that.Godknowme1 (talk) 10:20, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

• Keep. The references in the article are enough to show that this iteration of an annual tournament received significant coverage and meets the GNG. In addition, a web search for "2025 "jay trophy"" turns up far more sources, such as this, which shows that the references currently cited are far from exhaustive. If this is not kept, I would prefer a merge/redirect to Jay Trophy to outright deletion. Toadspike [Talk] 19:33, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

  Again, WP:ROUTINE coverage. Vestrian24Bio 02:28, 29 March 2025 (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.