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. Merging can be discussed at the talk page. NOTE: article was moved during the AfD to Cricket Bat industry of India. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traditional Indian cricket bat

[edit]

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

Traditional Indian cricket bat is not a topic unique from the Cricket bat. Merger was proposed two weeks ago - the only comment on the proposal was the creator's, who said this was some class project, and that the article would be further expanded. No evidence of expansion exists. Hence, I went ahead with the merger, and now am proposing the deletion of this article, all of whose relevant contents, with citations, are now at the Cricket bat article. Ratibgreat (talk) 12:45, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete An interesting essay on the Indian cricket bat industry, but it fails to convince me that there is a traditional Indian cricket bat; thereby failing to achieve notability as a subject. Mangoe (talk) 13:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't claim to be an expert on WP:ATTRIBUTION, but I'm not sure that deletion is appropriate here, because it appears that material from this article has been re-used in cricket bat and thus the edit history of this article needs to be preserved. Assuming that others conclude the present article is no longer needed, redirect may be a better way to go.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:16, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If preservation is the objective, redirect? Ratibgreat (talk) 05:51, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The title doesn't sound right, but the variant is a legitimate one. Also, since the content has already been merged (and that's a reasonable decision), the article shouldn't be deleted (and of course the merged-to and merged-from tags ought to be slapped on the talk pages). —SpacemanSpiff 18:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment,The article was created as part of my course study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:India_Education_Program/Courses/Fall_2011/Research_Methodology_Year_3_Group_B#Due_July_24. The article not only looks at the Indian cricket industry from the point of view of cricket,but the economy it generates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaustubh85 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:08, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. — — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:09, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having had a deeper look at the article I'm convinced that this should be kept and renamed to Cricket Bat industry of India. The article talks about the bat as well as the industry and the coverage of the industry can be significantly expanded based on reliable sources. This Daily Mail article just touches on how EU regulations impact usage of Kashmir willow in bats etc. The Googles also tells me that the issue was discussed in the Australian Parliament in 1965. A Business India article from 2002 describes the revenue/turnover pattern of the cricket bat industry in Kashmir but I can't preview it to get the actual figures; some sources: this from The Independent, this from the Daily News and Analysis, this from the Business Standard talks about the industry in general, this from the New Zealand Herald talks about the impact of the World Cup on the bat manufacturing community, this from the Dawn (newspaper) talks about the impact of the Kashmir conflict on the industry. It's clearly a notable topic, the title needs a bit of tweaking, that's all. —SpacemanSpiff 17:13, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just don't see it This really doesn't read to me as an article about the cricket bat industry of India, and never mind my qualms about writing such an article. It's really written as the kind of "Which Cricket Bat for You?" article that might appear in Indian Cricket Today (should such a journal exist). Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I don't share your read on this. I don't see the article providing the reader a choice, rather it appears to me to discuss the different market segments. The problems section addresses only a certain aspect of the industry which can easily be expanded using many of the available sources. Gbooks also has some good previews for the history of the industry. I'd fix this myself, but it's a project from the India Education Program run by the foundation and I'd rather let the student do it as he's being graded on this. —SpacemanSpiff 07:45, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks a lot Sir..I would really work on the notes that you have provided. I would really like to have your input in it too.Kaustubh85 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 17:58, 30 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]

Good finds! This is a significant industry. 5000 people in this one town make three million cricket bats a year. [1] The article isn't just about the bats, but the industry that makes them, the history of it, and how this affects the people involved. Dream Focus 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - if the sources can be added and the article improved then I'll endorse a keep. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:15, 30 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per reliable sources [2], [3], [4] that qualify topic notability. Northamerica1000 (talk) 15:19, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content has been used by the nominator in another article and so we must keep this article to satisfy our licensing. See WP:MAD. Warden (talk) 17:16, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MAD doesn't need to be satisfied with a keep! Merge and redirect will still preserve the history records. Ratibgreat (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pointless article that adds no value. Specifics of Indian bat production should be written into cricket bat. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 19:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, primarily per SpacemanSpiff who shows just enough significant coverage that I think the article is viable as a stand-alone and doesn't need to be merged into cricket bat. Jenks24 (talk) 00:21, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge/redirect'. As BlackJack says, specifics of Indian bat production should be written into cricket bat. Neutrality^talk 19:18, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable sources have been found about the industry itself, not just the cricket bats. Dream Focus 00:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- This artical is long enough, I agree with User:Dream Focus, the industry exists, keep it on wikipedia. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 02:14, 11 October 2011 (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.