Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 World Seniors Championship

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 no consensus defaulting to Keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

2019 World Seniors Championship[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Fails WP:CRYSTAL, and WP:RS, ^{adding WP:PROMO 01:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)} ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 20:48, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: The venue for the event has not been confirmed, the qualifying events are non-tour/non-ranking exhibition matches for retired and current 40 and over players Snooker Legends and the year-end Championship is by invitation only. 3 of the 8 invitees to the 2018 World Seniors Championship withdrew prior to the event, so there are no reassurances. Since the 2019 event has not yet taken place, there is nothing beyond passing mention in sources. The competition itself is based on a few non-tour exhibition matches, which is one of the reasons I’m on the fence as to whether or not GNG or Notability (sports) requirements have been met. The 2019 event may or may not get coverage in multiple secondary sources, or it may end-up being a dud, so delete, send to draft or protect as a redirect may be options to consider until the event takes place. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 10:32, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

The main source is Snooker Legends - organizers of the Snooker Seniors Tour, including the World Seniors Championship.

Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Ball?[edit]

Should all pages on future sporting events and events in general be put up for deletion?

For instance; should all future snooker events of the 2018/2019 snooker season be put up for deletion?

Thomas Kirk Larsen (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect until the qualifiers begin at the start of November. It is not that unusual for snooker tournaments to get cancelled but the World Seniors Championship has been a regular feature of the calendar for the last few years. On this basis it is likely to go ahead, and once the qualifiers actually start that usually means the funding is in the place and it will almost certainly go ahead (I can't ever recall a tournament being cancelled outright after the qualifiers begin). I would rather not have it deleted because it would mean recreating the article in a month's time, so redirecting to the World Seniors umbrella article would be sufficient IMO. Once the qualifiers begin we would be documenting an ongoing event anyway so WP:CRYSTAL would no longer be an issue. Betty Logan (talk) 00:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, Betty Logan - problem is that it shows up in NPP queue whenever the redirect is reverted...(and that has happened twice now by the same editor here and here). Since there are no RS cited, and there is nothing I can see that establishes notability before this event takes place, AfD was the obvious choice. If it turns out the event itself becomes notable and is covered in multiple independent RS, there won't be any reason to redirect or send it to AfD. There is also enough room in the main article to simply add the outcome of the event after it is held. When the main page blossoms, then the spin-offs can be created. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 00:23, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the lack of reliable sources—as in independent secondary sources—is a red-herring in this case. The World Seniors Championship can be easily established as a notable event through reliable sources for previous events, and the only reason there aren't any reliable sources for the 2019 edition is because news outlets don't tend to report on snooker events at the qualifier stage. Once you get to the main event and the big names come in reliable sources will start to cover it. It is not really practical to ask editors to not develop the article until the event is concluded because interest will die off and it just won't get done. If editors keep reverting the redirect it can simply be protected for a month which should address the revert problem. Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced that the purpose of WP is to serve as a directory for upcoming events or as an outlet to promote upcoming events. We have draft space and sandboxes for unfinished articles. I probably should have sent this to draft space until the event has occurred and notability can be properly established per WP:Notability (sports).^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:19, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A lot of this argument is regarding the event not being held by RSs. Discover NI, Snooker Backer and Snooker HQ all comment on the tournament. The arguement here is that; we know this event will happen, and will be notable, but it's the same argument against having the 2020 World Snooker Championship article created. An article like that could be a redirect, as we get closer to this years event, but in this case, the qualifiers for the tournament are next month, so an argument of WP:TOOSOON is quite a stretch IMO. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This article actually has more sourcing than a traditional tournament, such as the 2018 Paul Hunter Classic, even during the event. [1] Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable per the above sources. It's really not TOOSOON when qualifiers start in less than a month. Smartyllama (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:57, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What independent secondary sources are being referenced that are not passing mention, and actually something that passes Notability (Sports)??? Name 3, please. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 01:15, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This will start in few months to come and preceding years have existing articles. It's surprising to call event like this a CRYSTAL. . –Ammarpad (talk) 07:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last time I looked, WP was an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool to advertise upcoming exhibition games hoping all the invited players will actually show up and warrant independent coverage in RS. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 08:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed that's true. I quiet detest promotion too but this article is not promotional, were it so, G11 will have taken care of that. The event is notable and will soon take place, so no point in deleting and recreating in few months to come. If you're claiming it's not notable at all, then that's different issue. –Ammarpad (talk)

The problem with G11 is the fact that the request can simply be removed. If you will also look at the edit history, you will see that it was a REDIRECT by 2 different NPP reviewers, and both times the redirect was removed, so AfD is the appropriate place. I also ask that whoever closes it takes the time to review the other exhibition games because I question their notability - there simply are no independent RS to establish these exhibition matches as notable. Fram recently initiated an AfD for a group of Youth Olympic participants because they lacked coverage in multiple independent RS, and that’s what got me to thinking perhaps the same needs to happen here. I tend to lean inclusionist but I’m not convinced there is any justification for yearly stand alone articles of exhibition games intended for promotion, especially when some of the invitees themselves don’t bother to attend. ^{Atsme✍🏻📧} 13:43, 23 October 2018 (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.