Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Puerto Rico International

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Lourdes 09:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Puerto Rico International[edit]

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

Non-notable badminton tournament. Relies on a results database for references. Lack of GNG to justify an article. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 05:33, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Puerto Rico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:10, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the highest level international tournament held in the country and is sanctioned by the Badminton World Federation and Badminton Continental Confederation. The tournament is similar to comparable events in tennis, or golf for instance. Additionally, there are enough sources here to pass GNG. Looking at some of the winners shows that the tournament clearly attracts some very good players. In comparison (stated in Wikipedia:Notability_(events)), College bowl games (not limited to BCS or College Football Playoff bowl games, see e.g. 2009–10 NCAA football bowl games) or All-star or similar exhibition games are notable. The mentioned article for deletion above is of much bigger relevance than the cited college games. Additionally, similar events were already discussed in detail, with all of them as result Keep. Florentyna (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Florentyna. Stvbastian (talk) 01:41, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. We already discussed this. They're notable. Nothing's changed. This is getting out of hand. Smartyllama (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2017 (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.