Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Cricket World Cup Semifinal: India v Pakistan

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. KTC (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Cricket World Cup Semifinal: India v Pakistan[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Article was originally prodded with the reason, "The lasting significance of this match has not been proven. Coverage at the time of the game was nothing more than routine, and there is nothing here to suggest that the match has transcended into cricket lore." PROD was removed with the reason, "Notable match among arch-rivals in the world cup, had significant coverage, attended by premiers of the nations." As I have noted above, the match did receive coverage, but that coverage was nothing more than routine for a match between India and Pakistan, of which there have been hundreds. This match has not had any lasting consequences, and in the two years since it happened, there has been no indication that it will be looked back on as a cricketing classic. – Pee Jay 01:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:46, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary and I fail to see how an event that was watched by roughly a billion people and received extensive media coverage (and I don't just mean scorecard and match report, as is true for every international cricket match) does not easily pass wikipedia's notability bar. Abecedare (talk) 01:48, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to keeping the article but it really needs to be rewritten and improved – the opening "summary" paragraph is longer than any of the other sections, and the match itself is covered in just two and half lines. We should be wary if every match in future between India and Pakistan in a major cricketing tournament is considered a "notable" event worthy of its own Wikipedia article – that would pretty much confirm PeeJay's assertion that this match was not anything out of the ordinary. Richard3120 (talk) 04:38, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Would reply to every sentence as mentioned by the nominator. 1) Coverage: What do you mean by routine?? India v/s Pakistan matches once used to be amongst the most watched in any sport game. As the time passed, the significance came down. However, this time, it was a world cup, held in the home country, against the rivalry country and a fight to reach the final match. Coverage and notability was the highest and the references proves that. B) "This match has not had any lasting consequences": Who remembers this match on your daily routine?? Give a chance and rewind some moments of Cricket world cup, this will be remembered as one of the epic matches in the world cup. It was indeed notable, and many officials attended this match, including the Prime Ministers of both the countries and many other politicians, many actors and other top celebrities along with thousands of people in stadium and millions of viewers alone in India. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 07:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Your argument to point B is in direct contravention of WP:CRYSTAL. There is no evidence that this match has any lasting notability right now. If that changes, of course the article should be recreated, but at the moment we should not have an article based on the possibility that it might become notable in the future. I'm sure famous people attend Indian cricket matches all the time, I really don't see what was so important about this one. – Pee Jay 13:05, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To address your query about, "what was so important about this one.", see for example

India-Pakistan World Cup semifinals match goes way beyond cricket Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Yusuf Raza Gilani are watching the match together in what is being referred to as an example of 'cricket diplomacy.' As Pakistan takes on neighboring India in the semi-finals of cricket’s World Cup today, much more is at stake than just bragging rights for the billion fans expected to tune in. Pakistan’s cricketers have not played a match in India since the Mumbai attacks in 2008, which Pakistani officials have admitted were partly planned on their soil. Dialogue between the two nations resumed only last month, and the countries remain locked in a bitter dispute over the Himalayan territory of Kashmir, over which they have fought three wars. For something approaching a comparison, think: the United States vs. the Soviet Union in the 1980 Winter Olympics ice hockey match dubbed “Miracle on Ice.”

An encounter to stop a subcontinent Interest is at fever pitch across the region. India's parliament is shutting up shop at 2.30 pm. A large screen has been erected in the halls of debate. Mumbai's taxi drivers are taking the day off. Companies are asking their employers to arrive at 7am, promising to stop work in time for the first ball. They, too, have put up screens in offices and on factory floors. Otherwise no one would turn up for work. The Melbourne Cup might stop a nation. India versus Pakistan in the World Cup stops a subcontinent.

See also, the Guardian, and the New York Times on the topic. (I am not even bothering to quote media from India and Pakistan). If after reading these links you are convinced of the match's notability, I'd suggest withdrawing the nomination. If not, we can wait for others to weigh in. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- - - If the match itself was really that historically significant, then that needs to be made clear in the text. To be honest, all I'm seeing is an overblown extention to the India–Pakistan relations article. Perhaps there needs to be a merger here. – PeeJay 15:13, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Merge to what? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 04:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        To India–Pakistan relations, of course. – Pee Jay 12:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Won't it be odd to write that 3 people died of shock after Pakistan lost the match; and that Tendulkar nearly missed getting out multiple times in the Indo-pak relations article? Coz that has nothing to do with diplomatic relationship. Also the huge viewership count would make no sense in that article. I suppose anything that 150 million people worldwide decided to watch is worth some bytes on Wikipedia. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:14, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        There are plenty of events that have reached similar audiences yet don't have articles on Wikipedia. Tendulkar nearly getting out is irrelevant to the reason why this match is notable (if it is notable at all); people dying of shock at the result isn't relevant either. The thing this match might be notable for is that it helped bring India and Pakistan closer together in the wake of the Mumbai bombings; anything else is just fluff. – Pee Jay 16:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but concur with PeeJay's comments the article does seem to need a bit more on the context to fully evidence its significance. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets WP:GNG. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:53, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep Notability is unquestionable. Fixing the article is a separate unrelated issue, AFD is not Cleanup. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 15:56, 21 November 2013 (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.