Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BCCI Corporate Trophy


 * 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: There's consensus to keep the parent,delete the teams, and merge the seasons. I've done the deletions; will Harrias or someone please clean up redirects etc. as needed.  DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

BCCI Corporate Trophy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Although tournaments are not explicitly covered by WP:CRIN, the general consensus is that tournaments (with few exceptions) without matches first-class, List A, or T20 are not automatically notable. There is nothing to suggest this tournament meets the general notability guideline – the tournament is just another trophy, with any distinguishing features. For an almost identical situation, see Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League. Although the players within the tournament may be notable, notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. The teams involved in the tournament are similarly not notable (perhaps even more so), and I am including them in the nomination, as well as the article on the first edition of the tournament:
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 *  IgnorantArmies  13:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The deletion discussion for an almost identical situation linked above was superceded by Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League (2nd nomination). And where is the evidence of a consensus that tournaments or teams have to be at the level where individual players would be assumed notable? For example I don't see any questioning of the notability of these tournaments or these teams, nearly all of which are at a lower level than those wanted by the nominator. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Apologies for referring to the Celebrity Cricket League discussion – I didn't realise that had been reopened with a different result. With regard to English club competitions and teams, some of these have been in existence for 50, 100, 150 years, and thus are extraordinarily well-documented, meeting the GNG. Many others don't meet the GNG, in my opinion, and probably ought to be deleted. Thousands of other English club teams exist, and yet don't have Wikipedia articles. I've always understood the gist of WP:CRIN to be that, where matches in tournaments do not hold first-class level, notability needs to be proven (rigorously) on a case-by-case basis. Corporate sports teams are common around the world. CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo routinely cover thousands of minor tournaments. What differentiates this tournament (and the teams in it) from those other teams and tournaments? Does a tournament cross the threshold of notability simply because some of its players are notable?  IgnorantArmies  14:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep the parent article, delete the team articles and merge the season articles. I'm not really convinced either way on this nomination, and was tempted to vote to keep everything or delete everything. But essentially, I think that the league is certainly notable enough to retain an article; a Google search reveals numerous hits, and that is just about all we need to assert notability. However, I think that the season article is certainly not notable enough to have its own article, and that should definitely be merged into the parent article. As to the teams; at the moment each one is merely a line stating that they play in this tournament, followed by a list of players. Given that, I would suggest that these should simply be deleted; there is nothing valuable there to save. The parent article can have a section about the teams, but I don't think listing players is necessary.  Harrias  <sup style="color:#009900;">talk 08:05, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I think User:Harrias hits the nail on the head! The tournament is to the most part notable, the season and most certainly the teams aren't.  So delete the teams, merge content from the season article into the parent one, and keep the main tournament article. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 17:31, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Just to clarify (and hopefully prevent another relisting), as nom I would endorse Harrias' suggestion above. <small style="border: 1px solid;padding:1px 3px;white-space:nowrap"> IgnorantArmies  14:38, 2 August 2013 (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.