Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nehru Smarak Stadium

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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 18:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nehru Smarak Stadium[edit]

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

Non-notable stadium. Results of search engines showed nothing but a couple of brief mentions, and inclusion in lists. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- 1Wiki8Q5G7FviTHBac3dx8HhdNYwDVstR (talk) 19:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Playing first class cricket is the WP:NCRIC notability guideline, so as this ground has hosted first class cricket matches, that makes it notable in my opinion.The-Pope (talk) 23:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This seems like a no-brainer. The Wiki:Cricket project considers a venue to be notable if it used by a first-class team. The Bihar cricket team was a first-class team (i.e., Ranji Trophy) that used the subject stadium as its home grounds in 1972 and 1973. Howzat? NewYorkActuary (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - WP:NCRIC doesn't seem to mention venues, dealing only with players (maybe I missed it?). NewYorkActuary's link leads to a more spot-on discussion on the notability of venues. However, it doesn't say that a venue is considered notable if used by a first class team. It says, "Re a venue (aka ground), WP:CRIC has agreed that its regular usage by a notable club ensures its own notability per se." Please note that 2 matches in a 2 year period 40 years ago is hardly "regular usage". Onel5969 ^{TT me} 04:02, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It seems we're reading different portions of the guidelines. My position is based on the first sentence of the relevant section, which reads "... all clubs and teams taking part in major cricket matches are automatically qualified under the conditions of WP:N and WP:ORG; as are venues used in such matches." The guideline then goes on to say "Difficulty may arise with clubs that have not competed at major level and, similarly, with venues that have not staged first-class or List A matches", followed by a discussion of the ways that a team might be deemed 'notable' even if it hasn't participated in major-level matches. Under my reading of the section, the sentence that you quoted applies only to venues that were the home grounds of teams that are seeking to be "notable" under the alternate criteria.

A similar discussion is currently taking place at the AfD page for Territorial Army Parade Ground. I don't know if the discussants there are members of the Cricket Project, but their opinions all seem to be "even just one first-class match = notable". NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: appears to have hosted two first class matches, and as recently as February 2014 hosted games in the Indian women's inter-state Twenty20 competition: [1][2]. As such, I think this ground is probably notable. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - currently in use for a major competition (as pointed out by AustralianRupert). This would seem to be sufficient to establish notability. Anotherclown (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2015 (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.