Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 Masters Champions 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 keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

2016 Masters Champions League

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Apparently MCL is a tournament for "retired cricketers" and according to main article The players must all have been former international cricketers. So it seems like it is just an exhibition tournament with not enough notability for season articles. The notable content can be included in main article. Qed237&#160;(talk) 21:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Qed237&#160;(talk)</b></i> 21:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Its a proper tournament and its 10 year tournament so how many seasons you will cover in one article? also i have corrected your spelling mistake "retired *cricketeers"  Green Cricket   TALK  10:16, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
 * The notable content (not all content) could be kept in the main article. Like a table of winners and runners-up. <i style="font-family:Sans-serif"><b style="color:blue">Qed</b><b style="color:red">237</b>&#160;<b style="color:green">(talk)</b></i> 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: What is the point of creating an individual article for a season in a sports league that consists of entirely retired players. These guys are no longer professional and these games don't have any major significance past this tournament. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 06:13, 5 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Retired players meaning that the players are not available in international arena only. Most of players are still active in domestic tournament like Indian Premier League and Big Bash League. Tournament organisations are hoping to continue in next year too. So I stand with keep the article. (Price Zero (talk) 07:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Keep The tournament has become quite popular. The article will provide useful infomation to the cricket fans.-- সাজিদ   রেজা   করিম  16:34, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep While I agree with some of the nominator's concerns, this is getting significant international coverage, and easily meets our notability criteria. <b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 14:55, 7 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge: My initial thoughts on this are that it should be merged into the Masters Champions League. To clarify a point above, says it is a "10 year tournament". To be specific, the organizing committee has been granted a 10-year licence. This is the first season and there is no guarantee there will be a second. Until such point in time that there are multiple tournaments each with their own coverage, then there is no purpose in having separate articles. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 06:12, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * If merge article it'll be used more space. And it can be difficult to understand useful point.(Price Zero (talk) 09:52, 8 February 2016 (UTC))
 * Are you sure? Look at the current contents of Masters Champions League. The only things different/not in the "2016" article are the lead, 5 sentence of history and the 8 "key people". Merging that small amount of information with the 2016 article will not be "difficult to understand" if done properly. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 09:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * No one can predict about future of any league..if league disestablished then merge it like it happens with Champions League T20  Green Cricket   TALK  11:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * You have it the wrong way around. We should have it merged first because right now there is only one league; there is no prediction involved in making that statement. Then, we can split in the future if there is too much information to be contained in a single article. Working on an assumption that there will be ten seasons just because there is a contract for ten years violates WP:CRYSTAL. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:11, 9 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep: While their is talk of removing it, I agree on what the nominator is saying but its worth keeping to see if it last another year and if not, then remove it. Matt294069 is coming 05:36, 9 February 2016 (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.