Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gentlemen v Players 2010 match

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. Tone 19:43, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen v Players 2010 match

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Fails WP:Notability and WP:CRIN. The article is about a one-off exhibition match involving numerous people who are not first-class cricketers. The claim that it is resurrection of the former Gentlemen v Players fixture is nonsense and there is no connection other than the title. --Jack | ^{talk page} 18:28, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no actual connection to the Gentlemen v Players matches the idea that it is notable as the first T20 of this saga is redundant. Doesn't have anything to set itself apart. --S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the rerasons given above. Scores of charity exhibition matches are played each season, and this match has no greater claims to notability than do those. JH (talk page) 19:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely agree with JH.. Chris (talk) 20:35, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this match is notable as its first time in 48 years anyone has played in a pro-am format reviving the spirit of the Gentlemen v Players match. Many Gentlemen v Players matches were exhibition matches and this one no different from the others in that respect. The differences are this is a new format with inner city kids being given a platform to excel under the banner of an historic format and as such should be encouraged. Perhaps the current page could be kept edited to explain the differences with the old format. (n.b. Added by User:Csh24).
- I don't think 48 years is a particularly long time, and the "spirit" is not the same as a matched genuinely linked to the older G v P matches, also it doesn't necessarily inherit its notability. Giving "inner city kids" a platform to excel is all very well but that does not a notable topic make. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would just point out that the the original GvP matches were not exhibition games: they were all first-class fixtures and, although the Gentlemen often fielded a weak team, it was one of the standout fixtures in every season. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 17:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It may be a noble cause, but very few are notable. – ukexpat (talk) 19:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the sensible words by JH.—User:MDCollins (talk) 22:07, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non notable match as per the reasons above, also no scorecard on CricketArchive - so must have been a non notable match!!! AssociateAffiliate (talk) 16:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, just one of many charity matches played every year and in no way connected to the original G v P matches, well apart from the name. ukexpat (talk) 19:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnlp (talk) 10:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.