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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2012 ICC Women World Twenty20 (Warm Up Matches)[edit]

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

Delete for exactly the reasons outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 ICC World Twenty20 (Warm-up matches), which resulted in delete Dweller (talk) 08:39, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note. As with the deleted men's article, the contents from this page are an unnecessary and not notable duplication of the content included in the main article: 2012_ICC_Women's_World_Twenty20#Warm-up_matches. --Dweller (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Because this article contains those un-official cricket matches which is difficult to find , Because in ICC's website we generally doesn't find the result of these warm-up games. And it contains women cricket's warm-up matches results. So it is more difficult for the readers to get the result of these matches. Again you can't find the results of these matches in the main article as those are hidden. So I think it should be kept. User:Pratyya Ghosh —Preceding undated comment added 15:44, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As the previous AfD debate, the result was to be deleted. Mediran ^{talk|contribs} 11:21, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that something is "difficult to find" is not a reason for keeping. (In fact, on the contrary, if anything it is a reason for deletion, as it strongly suggests that there is a lack of sources, which means that the subject is unlikely to be notable.) I see no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As of the men's article, this is one is also covered wholly in the main article. extra999 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination and precedent set with the men's article. If it's difficult to find on the ICC site (I'm assuming you mean under the archive found here) then there's probably a good reason for it: they're too minor. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:53, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Unrelated to this debate, I know, but User:Pratyya Ghosh's article on the 2007 Kenya Quadrangular Twenty20 Series which was CSDed, might have some merit for inclusion, as I think some of the matches played had Twenty20 International status. Howzat?Out!Out!Out! (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 17:29, 28 September 2012 (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.