Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Players Championship (2nd nomination)

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:08, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Players Championship[edit]

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

Individual editions of regular season golf tournaments are not sufficiently noteworthy to warrant an article per WP:NOTNEWS. Anything out of the ordinary that occurred during this tournament (I'm not aware of anything though) should be mentioned in the parent article. Quickly renominating due to lack of participation in original discussion. _wjemather ^bigissue 08:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. —_wjemather ^bigissue 08:54, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Players isn't a major, it shouldn't have an individual article.-William 09:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Players does have I believe the highest purse of any golf tournament (though some others are close), and counts more towards the world golf rankings more than any other non-major (80 points instead of 100; there is only one other tournament over 40). It is the signature PGA Tour (i.e. non-major) event, and sometimes (unofficially of course) called the "fifth major". It tends to have a more international field than other PGA Tour events, and winners are exempted from one to three years at all four majors. Performances there are fairly scrutinized. It is set up as a marquee event on the PGA tour along with the four majors and season-ending stuff. I could see individual coverage of this tournament; it is a far cry from a regular tour event. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the world ranking points available attest to the strength of the field, and moreover the fact it is the PGA Tour's designated premier event, and yes it has in the past being labelled as the 5th major, although since the advent of the WGC events that moniker is increasingly rare, but individual editions of The Players are simply not notable enough by WP standards to stand on their own. We do not need, and nor should we have, articles for individual editions of tournaments outside of the majors (and possibly the WGCs). _wjemather ^bigissue 15:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per what Clindberg said. ~~Bigtop~~ みんな空の下 (トーク) 07:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Clindberg's comments relate to the notability of The Players as a tournament, not to the notability of a particular year's tournament. What is there to suggest that the 2010 tournament will have any long lasting coverage beyond the routine coverage normally given to a PGA tournament? For example, the majors are daily headline main news, The Players is rarely even routine sports news outside the US. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The TPC (I still prefer the old moniker) is the top PGA tour event, as evidenced by its purse and world rankings points. Each year's event gets significant coverage in numerous reliable sources. I can't speak for outside the US, but coverage within the US is plenty to establish notability. I see no reason why individual editions of the tournament "are simply not notable enough by WP standards to stand on their own." Rlendog (talk) 19:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course "the TPC" is a misnomer based on the venue (TPC being an acronym of Tournament Players Club not Championship – TPC Sawgrass being the venue). But anyhow, every single PGA Tour event gets a large amount of coverage – while it is being held. This is no different. The standard for inclusion is lasting coverage or impact. This instance of the Players (like most if not all others) has none. _wjemather ^bigissue 00:21, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:48, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but keep in mind that there are a ton of similar articles in other relative minor sports. Just to pick a really random example in snooker: 2010 Irish Classic. Nergaal (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wikipedia's sports coverage is............. encyclopedic. This is an important tournament in a near-major sport and the article should be of interest to a significant number of WP users. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this is stretching WP:NOTNEWS. This isn't a "news event". It is a scheduled top level sporting tournament that attracts significant coverage. We have to bear in mind the purpose behind NOTNEWS is to prevent wikipedia becoming a newspaper. I don't see how that purpose is furthered by deleting this article.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTNEWS does apply, but moreover WP:EVENT, particularly WP:ROUTINE, even more specifically covers this type of article. In any case, there is nothing in this article that is not already in, or could not be easily added to, the winners table in the Players Championship article other than round by round leaderboards, which are nothing more than fluff. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:10, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Don't see how this is anything other than reporting on a sports event, there is no commentary just reproduction of the results so should be deleted under WP:NOTNEWS. None of the keep !votes have addressed this issue. Codf1977 (talk) 13:05, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – This passes Notablity and Verifiablity, so it must be kept because it is encyclopedic sporting event like WGC Events and The Majors. I would advise writting some commentary and putting in additional sources, but this is no reason to delete.BLUE _DOG^TN 23:47, 24 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.