Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Channel Island Snooker 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 delete. I felt that the reasons for deletion, being more policy-grounded and explicit, outweighed the reasons for retention; I do not feel that the reasons for retention have adequately enough addressed the sourcing concerns. –MuZemike 02:14, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Channel Island Snooker Championship[edit]

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

Article fails WP:V and WP:RS. No reliable sources as it can be seen there Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it seems to be significant enough in snooker circles to merit national news coverage, as here and here, as well as a double-handful of local-interest hits. Turn it over to Project Snooker (or whatever the relevant project is) and see what they make of it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've left a message on the Project Snooker talk page asking for some expert opinion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to comment. Thank you. With all the debate proposing deleting unreferenced BLPs simply because of referencing, this procedure, to forward a questionable article to the Project page for comment by experts in the field, is exactly what I have been proposing as a viable solution.Trackinfo (talk) 22:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is not unusual for amateur events to get some local press attention through local or regional press outlets, but if we can't independently source the results for the events then we can't meet the Wikipedia criteria for properly documenting the tournament. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . I've doe some research on the subject and it certianly seems to be a significant enough event to warrant it's place in Wikipedia. It appears on the BBC website every so often as it does now. Actually I'm quite surprised that it was nominated for deletion, but then again nothing here surprises me these days. (Mr Real Natural (talk) 03:12, 10 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to those who say keep. If there are sourced then please add them to the article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 03:21, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Armbrust you argued with the wrong points, I must tag this for speedy deletion under the unnotable catagory WP:N not WP:V like I told you on your GAN of Ronnie O'Sullivan it does not matter if it is enough to have WP:V, which is just sources. It must contain some element that makes it NOTABLE, which is a higher standard because it must received significant coverage, and it must have been a notable event. This I am sorry to say is not!BLUE _DOG^TN 01:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would have to say go and look at this] and [THIS news! This makes you argument unsubstiantiated!BLUE _DOG^TN 01:21, 22 February 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.