Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 PDC Qualifying Calendar
- 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. Courcelles (talk) 12:42, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
2023 PDC Qualifying Calendar
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2023 PDC Qualifying Calendar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Not a single in-depth source, fails
]- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 16:40, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I wouldn't use too many words, the same applies to this page as to the main calendar page.
With your logic, which is simply incredible, a lot of pages could be deleted, without being exhaustive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_ATP_Tour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_ATP_Tour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_ATP_Tour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_ATP_Tour etc etc etc etc.... Or I could put hundreds of other sites with the same references here. Your posts are characterized by total confusion, but I'd rather not go into that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szpity88 (talk • contribs) 21:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
- Providing a list of tennis articles is of no use. It's quite plausible that the tennis articles are notable but the darts one isn't, since tennis events perhaps get more coverage that darts events. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 13 March 2023 (UTC)]
- Once again the same pseudo-argument. Just because you don't watch darts doesn't mean articles related to this sport aren't notable. Who determines what is sufficient media coverage and what is not? It looks like you should read the guidelines you post here yourself first. Penepi (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Providing a list of tennis articles is of no use. It's quite plausible that the tennis articles are notable but the darts one isn't, since tennis events perhaps get more coverage that darts events. See
- Delete No indication that this passes WP:GNG. 2023 PDC Calendar has a list of qualifying events. The current article expands on this by listing all the qualifiers. While the full calendar may be notable, I couldn't see anything that indicates the "Qualifying Calendar" is something that is talked about. It's not obvious to me whether the lists of qualifiers is really notable and, if it is, why the information can't be in the main 2023 PDC Calendar. Nigej (talk) 15:40, 13 March 2023 (UTC)]
- Keep Useful, informative and well sourced. Penepi (talk) 10:53, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete, unusefull, no sources, no prose, fails GNG. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:22, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: Sources are listings, mentions, nothing that is SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. There is absolutely no sourcing for notability. Keep votes have failed to show sources demonstrating notability, just stating ]
- 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.