Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colombo Kings in 2020

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. The nomination reasons that this was spam, promotional, or a content fork merely for being a team's season page were rebutted by reference to analogous season articles and the NPOV-tone of the actual article text. The only non-keep !vote referencing the actual sourcing categorically rejects all of them, despite multiple sources being from prima facie reliable sources (e.g. ESPN Cricinfo, Yahoo! Cricket, Sky Sports. There's also support for merging if additional seasons are not held, which is probably a good idea, but that's a discussion for the future. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 16:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Colombo Kings in 2020[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)

(Add missing reason(s)): CONTENT FORK, ~~COI,~~ SPAM, PROMOTION, TOO SOON GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have also nominated the following related pages because of the same; please indicate a preference at these discussions GenQuest ^"scribble" 05:36, 19 January 2021 (UTC):[reply]

GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GenQuest ^"scribble" 19:06, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or delete The article may be created if it passes WP:NSEASONS but it still faces the same scrutiny any other article on Wikipedia faces. You can not bring up an article on Wikipedia as a reason to keep another article of similar content. Notability is not inherited from subject to subject simply because they are similar. When a subject is presumed notable and an article is created it may be brought up for AfD. It will then be judged according to the Notability Guideline (See WP:N). To say the article should never have been written would be wrong and to say it should stay simply because it meets a SNG is wrong. Everything hinges on proving it meets the basic Notability Guideline. This does not meet said guideline and therefore does not belong. --ARoseWolf (Talk) 14:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep First of all, the article passes the notability according to WP:NSEASON. I don't know similar articles of other leagues also exist for a long time but they are not deleted. For example, Islamabad United in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. Lahore Qalandars, Karachi Kings, Peshawar Zalmi, Quetta Gladiators, Multan Sultans in 2016, 17, 18, 19, 20. Plus, Mumbai Indians, Delhi Capitals, Royal Challengers Bangalore, Kolkata Knight Riders in 2010, 2011, 2012,...., 2020 and much more. All are present. Then why not these? What more I've to say is that the 2020 team article shouldn't be merged to main team article because 2020 team article contains an overview of only one and particularseason whereas the main team article contains information about the overview of all the seasons. So, it's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the information present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda, promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes which says Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of nominations are baseless and pointless. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 07:30, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be OK with a Redirect at this time, as nom. This was supposed to be part of the bundle at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galle Gladiators in 2020‎‎; This is TOOSOON and non-NOTABLE for a new league/team. Maybe later. Regards, 02:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment although the series is brand new but sources confirm the next season to be held in July 2021. [1] [2] [3]. The article passes the notability according to WP:NSEASON. It's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt User:Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to be COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the informations present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda and promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes, which says Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia. So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of the nomination are baseless and pointless. Empire AS ^Talk! 03:22, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The whole body of these are articles as presented are SPAM. You don't have to work for the entity to SPAM Wikipedia. Fans do it all the time. Right now, these X in 2020 articles are huge content forks and unnecessary. They are PROMOTIONAL as a body of work. They are also undeniably TOO SOON. GenQuest ^"scribble" 14:17, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Spam? But the subject is not promoted or publicized any where in the whole article. Everything is written according to NPOV. I don't see any text or content where the subject is seen to be promoted. You say that "X in 2020" are content forks of "X" but I disagree. There's a lot of difference between X and X in 2020. X (all seasons' overview) and X in 2020 (one season overview) aren't same at all. As I said above, no advocacy, propaganda or advertising in the whole article, therefore not PROMOTIONAL. Thank you. Empire AS ^Talk! 11:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - I'm not unhappy about keeping this for now, with the proviso that if the team never plays another season that the article be merged. These sorts of articles are prevalent across a wide range of sports and it seems reasonable that we have them here. I can understand the argument about it being a fork, but I think I'd give this 9 months or so and see what the situation is after that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 11:22, 23 January 2021 (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.