Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Bash League trophy

:{{la|Big Bash League trophy}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Big Bash League trophy}})

This subject doesn't require a whole article dedicated to it. There's no Friends Provident t20 trophy or Indian Premier League trophy articles (rightly so). Any information about the trophy can be included in a small section on the main competition article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 10:03, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

:If any tournament such as IPL or Friends Provident t20 does not a page dedicated to its trophy, it means that the trophies for these tournaments does not have any history associated with its making. They were simply created for the winner of the tournament. And how does it matter if those tournaments do not have a page on their trophies? Afterall, the main aim of Wikipedia and related pages is to provide as much information about a topic as possible and if the BBL trophy has enough information which can be listed down in a separate page, we should create a new page rather than looking at silly IPL or T20 tourney pages for inspiration on how to "copy" articles.--Karyasuman (talk) 11:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

::Merge to Big Bash League article. Compare, for example, article on Wisden Trophy, a long-standing competition: there's material on the actual trophy as well as on the cricket, and the same can be done here. To give it a separate article smacks of recentism. Johnlp (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you John, recentism was the word I was looking for on the nomination. Karyasuman, who says these trophies don't have a "history" behind them? The fact they don't have articles could possibly be down to how their design was reached not being encyclopedic and not particularly important. That is where you're wrong, unless is inherently notable and historic then there is no case for a stand alone article. Is the BBL Trophy inherently notable and historic? No. Should it be included in the main article? Yes. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 15:46, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to Big Bash League per John. Who knows, this trophy may be notable in the future, but at the moment, all references in the article are primary sources and I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Jenks24 (talk) 00:15, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• Merge the info if relevant and referenced into the Big Bash League, but I don't think we need to retain the redirect, because virtually no one will search for info on the trophy, other than those few involved in the design. The-Pope (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
• I believe the redirect needs to be retained to provide attribution. Jenks24 (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I usually try to make a decent effort to find sources for articles at AfD, but I'm afraid that encoutering the phrase "which is hitting Australia this December" in the very first sentence convinced me that this was written as a promotional piece rather than an encyclopedia article, so I won't bother with this one. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:13, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

: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.