Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Celebrity Cricket League


 * 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   delete. Stifle (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

2012 Celebrity Cricket League

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Another mickey mouse tournament of a bunch of celebrities having a jolly. Just because they're "celebrities" doesn't make their cricket or this tournament notable. A previous incarnation of a CCL article was deleted last year, having been deemed non-notable and failing WP:CRIN and WP:GNG. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 23:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable tournament. Johnlp (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Does not now or ever look like it can meet our inclusion criteria. Mt  king  (edits)  22:14, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Not sure that WP:CLUB is the most relevant guideline, but even so I would argue that this tournament meets both points: (1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. (It is a national tournament and has received coverage throughout India.); and (2) Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by multiple, third-party, independent, reliable sources. (See my !vote for an example of those sources.) Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, sort of. I believe this tournament meets the general notability guideline, but perhaps it should be moved to simply Celebrity Cricket League and incorporate last year's tournament as well. There is substantial coverage in major Indian newspapers, as can be seen by a simple google news search. I'll list a few here (but note that there are many more): (1) "Celebrity Cricket League gets hotter", The Times of India; (2) "Celebrity Cricket League excites Salman", The Times of India; (3) "After IPL, it's CCL!", The Hindu; (4) "Cinema Meets Cricket", Indian Express; (5) "Celebrity Cricket League held in Bangalore", The Times of India; (6) "A feast for the eyes", Deccan Herald; (7) "Cricket’s coming home", Khaleej Times; (8) "Salman's Celebrity Cricket League gets hotter", India Today; (9) "Cricket passion rides high as stars take to the pitch", The Hindu; (10) "The cricket star wars get hotter", The Times of India; (11) "Greasepaint to gloves", The Hindu; (12) "Celebs day out", The Hindu; (13) "Cheers to an exceptional performance", Deccan Herald; (14) "K-town puts on its game face", The Times of India; (15) "Joy's game for cricket", The Times of India. Those are all from the first page of my google news archive search (it's worth noting that some of those article are about the 2011 tournament because I was looking in the archive and the 2012 tournament only started three days ago). To refute some of the above points, I don't think anyone would claim that it's the quality of cricket that makes it notable (i.e. the fact that it doesn't pass WP:CRIN is irrelevant), but rather that it's notable because it has significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In addition, it has major crowds (some matches are even being played at Eden Gardens) and is being broadcast on an international television network, Sahara One (ref). Jenks24 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete due to precedent created by the previous deletion. I don't see anything different about the season this year that makes it notable. Andrew nixon (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - A celebrity in India can barely sneeze without the media and public going hype crazy, hence the above results. The people taking part might be notable, but that doesn't make the tournament or the cricket played in it notable. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
 * But why isn't it notable? Because the quality of cricket is low? I'm afraid that's not how GNG works. It seems clear to me that this tournament meets GNG (the references are not about the celebrities, they are about the actual tournament) and no-one in this discussion has refuted that. I feel like you (plural) are using "just not notable" arguments, which are not supposed to carry much weight. Jenks24 (talk) 04:02, 21 January 2012 (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.