Celebrity Cricket League ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore) ( XfD2)

Page was speedily deleted on 22 January 2012, reason G4, despite being challenged by two editors. However, the previous AfD discussion took place in June 2011, shortly after the first CCL tournament started. CCL is (Jan/Feb 2012) into its second season and the new article clearly stated this, therefore the article was substantially different from the 2011 article. The event is widely and regularly reported in the Times of India and Hindu Times. I put the recent article through AfC, copy-edited it and added additional sources. The speedy deletion tag was placed on the article while I was in the process of reviewing it (a message at the top of the article clearly stated review was in progress). I notice another article of the same name was created and speedily deleted today, so the 'problem' is not going to go away. The deleting admin, Fastily, is away until 8 February. Sionk ( talk) 18:32, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and renominate: Seems to be a completely different article than the one that's been deleted Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Undelete Sionk's version, not the most recent one. This tournament is clearly notable, IMO, and I'll copy/paste my rationale from the recent AfD here (hope that's OK):

  "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)."

— Jenks24 ( talk) 10:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Undelete and list at AfD as a reasonable contest of a G4 speedy deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• What is the difference between the newest Celebrity Cricket League article and 2012 Celebrity Cricket League? Flatscan ( talk) 05:08, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply
  • From what I understood, Celebrity Cricket League was about the tournament in general because it didn't specify a year. To be honest, the arguments that any 'Celebrity Cricket League' articles should be deleted because they weren't notable outside of India or because the cricket was of a poor standard were very dodgy indeed. Sionk ( talk) 14:10, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, it's a bit like National Football League and 2011 NFL season. Jenks24 ( talk) 15:48, 3 February 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks for your answers. Considering that each season was deleted after its own AfD, I think that the combined article would be on shaky ground. Weak overturn, the 2012 season is enough new information to avoid G4 for the first AfD, and the slightly different scope is just enough for the second. Flatscan ( talk) 05:24, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply

He is notable by gaining access to the main draw of 2012 PBZ Zagreb Indoors. I request undeletion. - Gabinho ^>:) 18:34, 28 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Maybe if he wins this rather dubiously notable Croatian tournament. But just because this local boy snags a wildcard slot, it's hardly a reason to overturn the AfD decision. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 03:03, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Undelete. The No. 3 article of the tennis notability guidelines ( NTENNIS) clearly states the following:

Tennis figures are presumed to be notable if they

3. Have competed in the main draw in one of the highest level professional tournaments:

Men: ATP World Tour tournaments (the ATP World Tour Finals, ATP World Tour Masters 1000, ATP World Tour 500, or ATP World Tour 250)

As per the above I request Undeletion of the article. The player is now notable. ( Gabinho ^>:) 13:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)) reply

• Undelete - Gabinho is absolutely correct. If Mesaros competed in the main draw of an international Mens ATP tournament, he meets WP:NTENNIS. The PBZ Zagreb Indoors is notable, not 'dubiously notable'. Sionk ( talk) 13:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Undelete per Gabinho. Meets NTENNIS, now notable. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:40, 30 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Not notable. Down with that article. Nobody knows it, sorry, it's just not reliable enough for an article. Don't tell me we're gonna have a page for all tennis playes. Nutshell1111 ( talk) 14:00, 4 February 2012 (UTC) reply
• Userfy or keep deleted. By virtue of the NTENNIS guideline, he is presumed to be notable, but we would still need to see a draft article that actually establishes such notability through references to coverage in reliable sources. The guideline cannot preempt the policy WP:V#Notability: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.  Sandstein  08:44, 5 February 2012 (UTC) reply