Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celebrity Cricket League (2nd nomination)


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 19:03, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Celebrity Cricket League
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Procedural nomination. The speedy deletion of this article was overturned in Deletion review/Log/2012 January 28, and the article referred to this board to determine whether it still fails WP:N. There are previous versions in the history that have more content. I am neutral.  Sandstein  08:49, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - I've replaced the one line stub with an earlier deleted version, which I believe had enough sources to establish notability. In fact, this was the version I argued should be re-instated by the deletion review. I was an active Articles for Creation reviewer at the time the article was first created and I moved it to mainspace because it was evidently a very news-worthy event. I added additional sources and copy-edited the article. The 2012 event is clearly attracting significant coverage from the Indian national media, I suspect the 2011 event did not go unnoticed either! The fact the previous deletion nomination was on the basis of the poor standard of cricket and only being notable in the second most populous nation on earth, was laughable.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete - This is getting ridiculous now. This article and numerous other variations of it have been taken to AfD and have been deemed to be non-notable; rightly so in my opinion.  A celebrity in India cannot sneeze without the media reporting on it.  The tournament is a jolly for a bunch of cult worshipped celebrities.  The league is not played to a professional standard, is not officially sanctioned (while one can argue the ICL wasn't, it was however a professional league and involved professional cricketers).  This doesn't qualify as routine coverage of a sporting event, because the people taking part are notable, not the event.  The event only gets coverage because of the people taking part.  It's mickey mouse cricket which fails the inclusion guidelines of WP:CRIN.  One can find all the sources in the world reporting on it, I'd still refuse to acknowledge its notability on the sole merit of a sporting event.  Media sensationalism is a poor basis for an article. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 21:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Like you admit yourself, the event gets coverage because of the people taking part. Therefore passes WP:GNG. There are plenty of TV shows, events and spectacles that get attention because celebrities are taking part. That is the whole point of involving celebrities. Sionk (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, again. I still stand by this rationale:
 * "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 [...] 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)."
 * We must have millions of articles on topics that have only got coverage because celebrities are involved and I don't see why cricket should be an exception to this. Jenks24 (talk) 04:08, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 *  Procedural closure Comment   WP:SK and WP:IAR, no rationale for deletion.  These procedural nominations enable an administrative route to disruption.  If there is no one willing to do the work to prepare the community for a deletion discussion, then obviously there is no need for the discussion.  By closing this WP:NPASR, then anyone that really wants this deleted can properly nominate it tomorrow.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read the entirety of WP:SK which states "Exception: If the nominator indicates that the nomination is procedural in nature (most commonly due to a "relist" result from deletion review), then the nomination is ineligible for speedy keep." Jenks24 (talk) 04:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Refuting a speedy keep that doesn't exist is called a straw man argument. Unscintillating (talk) 04:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Weren't you saying this should be closed as a speedy keep? Or are you arguing that we should never have procedural nominations from DRV? If the latter, surely AA's delete vote shows that at least someone thinks it should be deleted. Jenks24 (talk) 10:31, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The text in bold says "procedural closure". Yes, I'm saying that the experiment called the "procedural nomination" is not working.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, judging by AA's campaign to delete articles about Indian celebrities, it will almost certainly be nominated. So why not have the discussion now. Sionk (talk) 12:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If it is true that it is "almost certain" that someone would have been willing to do the work to prepare the community for this discussion, then it was not necessary to skip that step; with the only alternate (and low-probability) possibility that actually no one wanted to do the work, and this discussion is a total waste of the community's time. Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have not looked at any arguments except the nomination, so I expect to change my !vote to a comment if consensus is not quickly reached (<24 hours) for a procedural closure, as by then it will not be timely. Unscintillating (talk) 01:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - I stick by what I put :) I'm a cricketing purest who dies a little inside when I see articles like this! I see no reason why this discussion cannot take place now.  I'd have only AfDed it again. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I do not understand why the article should be removed, just because that the quality of cricket played is not good? well consider this article as something to do with celebrities not cricket--sarvajna 08:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ratnakar.kulkarni (talk • contribs)
 * Keep - The event received a wide media coverage and was viewed by millions, the TRPs on TV and footfall in the stadiums were quite high as well, a google search on Celebrity Cricket league or CCL yields 36 million results. Hence I feel an article on an event of such importance can't be ignored. I strongly support to keep the article. As such many non professional events have articles on wikipedia. Deleting this article would mean deviating from the original tenets of wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.197.234.119 (talk) 17:57, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The article demonstrates sufficient coverage in reliable sources to meet the general notability guidelines. Maybe it's India's spin (bowler) version of Battle of the Network Stars, maybe it's not a top-flight athletic league, but it does meet WP:GNG. —C.Fred (talk) 19:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly for Keeping - CCL is viewed by Million and it makes it noticeable. User:Jeevanjoseph1974 —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 11 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Strong Keep - Considering how the second season garnered much more attention & viewership(both on TV & the Stadium). And that there are enough considerable sources available over the internet for citation & reference. I strongly support & urge others to keep the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zephyrmaten (talk • contribs) 04:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per all reasons above. Adequate media coverage of events EelamStyleZ   talk  04:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Although the article is currently poorly written, but is well known enough. Keep! 131.107.0.70 (talk) 11:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - The league has gained huge viewership in its second version. Keep it! -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 12:17, 13 February 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.