Deletion of Dambulla Viiking in 2020

Comment: Literally falls under . Nominator has demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of the policies mentioned and should probably have cited  to make their intentions clear. Top level of T20 cricket in Sri Lanka. Many sources in the article
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSEASON||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: First of all, the article passes the notability according to . I don't know similar articles of other leagues also exist for a long time but they are not deleted. For example, Islamabad United in 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020. Lahore Qalandars, Karachi Kings, Peshawar Zalmi, Quetta Gladiators, Multan Sultans in 2016, 17, 18, 19, 20. Plus, Mumbai Indians, Delhi Capitals, Royal Challengers Bangalore, Kolkata Knight Riders in 2010, 2011, 2012,...., 2020 and much more. All are present. Then why not these? What more I've to say is that the 2020 team article shouldn't be merged to main team article because 2020 team article contains an overview of only ''one'' and ''particular''season whereas the main team article contains information about the overview of ''all'' the seasons. So, it's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the information present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda, promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes which says {{tq|Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia.}} So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of nominations are baseless and pointless. Thank you
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSEASON)

Comment: The article may be created if it passes  but it still faces the same scrutiny any other article on Wikipedia faces. You can not bring up an article on Wikipedia as a reason to keep another article of similar content. Notability is not inherited from subject to subject simply because they are similar. When a ''presumed'' notable article is created it may be brought up for AfD and will then be judged according to the Notability Guideline (See ). To say the article should never have been written would be wrong and to say it should stay simply because it meets an SNG is wrong. Everything hinges on proving it meets the basic Notability Guideline. This does not meet said guideline and therefore does not belong
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSEASONS||WP:N)

Comment: although the series is brand new but sources confirm the next season to be held in July 2021. https://www.islandcricket.lk/news/lpl-will-be-back-better-and-stronger-next-season/ https://www.thepapare.com/lpl-2021-to-feature-a-franchise-from-east/ https://www.islandcricket.lk/news/slc-promises-a-bigger-and-brighter-lpl-season-2/. The article passes the notability according to . It's not a content forking as the main article presents information about "all" seasons whereas the 2020 article presents information about only "one" season. COI would be valid if anyone of contributors would work for the league. I doubt User:Churot may be working for LPL 😂. How does it seem to be COI? Could you explain? Regarding PROMOTION, it would be valid only iff we were promoting the subject but all the informations present in the article are sourced, though mostly from ESPN Cricinfo. It's written according to NPOV. I see no advertising, advocacy, propaganda and promotion in the whole article. At last SPAM comes, which says {{tq|Spam is the inappropriate addition of content to Wikipedia with the intention of promoting or publicizing an outside organization, individual or idea, and is considered harmful to the encyclopedia.}} So, can you point out where the article is being promoted or publicized? I see spam nowhere. No spamming external links, no advertisement and no references promoting the subject or author. So, all the issues of the nomination are baseless and pointless
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:NSEASON)