Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Premier cricket 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   delete.  MBisanz  talk 02:01, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Premier cricket league

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable amateur corporate cricket league. Jpeeling (talk) 10:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. --Jpeeling (talk) 10:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-notable cricket competition. Johnlp (talk) 21:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:25, 24 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 05:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 02:38, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Since no arguments have been put forward for deletion, I vote keep on the basis that the tournament is being televised: http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k7/june/june252.phpJuzhong (talk) 00:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical  Cyclone  02:29, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep By deafault. Articles shouldn't keep getting re-listed until someone replies.  If no interest is generated by the 2nd relisting, it should be closed as keep.  Lugnuts  (talk) 18:36, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No evidence of notability provided whatsoever. The argument above sounds a bit strange. The subject attracts little attention, so it should be kept? Hmmm. -- Mattinbgn\talk 01:28, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where wikipedia gets these people from. Being televised is "no evidence whatsoever"? Juzhong (talk) 01:31, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, only source provided is official website, which is not enough to establish notability. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If people can't read, I don't think their votes should be counted. Juzhong (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can read perfectly well thank you. There is only one reference in the article, and that's the official site. Or maybe I'm going a bit blind, so perhaps you could point out the third party reference in the article. Thanks in advance. Andrew nixon (talk) 11:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK like one of the three wise monkeys, you can read but you choose not to. I still don't think your vote should be counted. Juzhong (talk) 11:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've looked again and still can't see a reference beyond the official site. Please by all means either point a third party reference out to me, or add one, and I will be quite happy to change my vote. Andrew nixon (talk) 12:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This one: http://www.indiantelevision.com/headlines/y2k7/june/june252.php .On the other hand, if you felt that more than one 3rd party source was required, you might not be able to find anything but press releases. Juzhong (talk) 13:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a tenuous one, but if that was in the article, I'd be quite happy to change my vote. Andrew nixon (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, I'm inclined to let this one go as I'm not sure there's anything else out there. Juzhong (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2008 (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.