Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gulf Giants

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 keep‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gulf Giants[edit]

[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)

There are not enough independent citations to warrant a standalone article. Fails WP:NSPORT. Consider a deletion or redirect it to International League T20. Charlie (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports, Cricket, and United Arab Emirates. Charlie (talk) 02:51, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure what "fails WP:NSPORT" means in this context, because WP:NTEAM does not have any specific guidelines. But there is plenty of significant coverage in multiple independent sources (e.g. [1][2][3][4]), so this is an easy WP:GNG pass. St Anselm (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@StAnselm with all due respect and assuming good faith; it seems like sources 1, 2, and 3 are just basic announcements and they don't provide a lot of detailed information. Also, source 2 and 3 are from Hindustan Times which has a history of mirroring Wikipedia in the past. In contrast, source number 4 originates from NDTV, a media network and team both affiliated with the Adani Group through ownership. In general, I am not rejecting your reasoning or logic, but I think there's a strong requirement for credible sources that meet the standards of significant coverage and depth set by the following Wikipedia guidelines - WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGDEPTH, respectively. As it stands, the topic seems premature for Wikipedia inclusion i.e., WP:TOOSOON, though I am receptive to further information meeting WP:HEY. Charlie (talk) 05:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 04:06, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough coverage coming up on a simple search to suggest that there will be plenty of WP:SIGCOV with a more detailed search. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone through and done some cleanup and tagged some sections. There's clearly enough sourcing, although the article as it stands isn't as well sourced as it could be. So, yes, it's a keep Blue Square Thing (talk) 06:52, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Following the improvements it's much better and as they play more, well get even better. MaskedSinger (talk) 11:59, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Deleteper nom. DJ InstaMalik (talk) 08:07, 25 November 2023 (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.