- 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. Aoidh ( talk) 05:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 International Darts Open
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2023 International Darts Open ( | 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)
Was redirected, since it has an utter lack of independent sourcing, but that was reverted. Would have draftified, but that would have been tantamount to a backdoor deletion since the creator of the article has been banned from editing Darts articles, in part for creating articles like this. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. A redirect was appropriate until perhaps the tournament began to be played, but as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 PDC Players Championship series, that might not happen. Onel5969 TT me 14:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Germany. Shellwood ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see how this article is any different from any of the other articles about European Tour events that have been created over the years. The event is only two weeks away so deleting it, only to recreate it once the event has happened seems utterly pointless.
Dergraaf (
talk)
15:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's why it should have been left as a redirect.
Onel5969
TT me
17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- So what are you actually objecting to? Is it the existence of the article at all, or just that it was created too early? I think once the qualifiers have taken place and the field is confirmed is a reasonable time to create the article. Dergraaf ( talk) 17:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's why it should have been left as a redirect.
Onel5969
TT me
17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - The tournament is about to start, it has a bunch of names who are clearly notable due to wikipedia entries here and it just seems like that if it goes today, it'll be able to be posted in 3 weeks without an issue. Maybe it was written a little
WP:TOOSOON, but that may be solved before the outcome is even determined here.
KatoKungLee (
talk)
19:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Something containing a list of notable people doesn't make that person notable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please note that neither of the above keep !votes are based in policy. Onel5969 TT me 01:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- And KatoKungLee has also been blocked as a
WP:SOCK, so their votes should be ignored as per
WP:DENY.
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- They have been unblocked, so that does no langer apply. T v x1 18:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- And KatoKungLee has also been blocked as a
WP:SOCK, so their votes should be ignored as per
WP:DENY.
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- redirect per
GNG to either
2023 PDC Pro Tour, or create a
2023 PDC European Tour and redirect these articles to - they fail to draw enough coverage for us to have an article on each one.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
07:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- If they draw enough coverage such that they can meet
WP:GNG, e.g. with reliable secondary sources, isn't that the litmus test of whether or not they "draw enough coverage"?
212.115.159.212 (
talk)
23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- yes, my WP:BEFORE didn't bring up anywhere near enough to meet GNG.
- Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- If they draw enough coverage such that they can meet
WP:GNG, e.g. with reliable secondary sources, isn't that the litmus test of whether or not they "draw enough coverage"?
212.115.159.212 (
talk)
23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence this event passes WP:GNG, as all coverage is primary and/or trivial. Or redirect, if that's more appropriate. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Fails GNG and EVENT. Sources in article are all primary, BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to a redirect if there is a consensus on a target, but the article should be deleted first to remove unsourced names of living persons, without deletion I do not support a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 23:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify: To use your wording! It is clearly going to meet
WP:GNG once it starts, or perhaps a little beforehand, just like all the other PDC European Tour tournaments do. The crime here is that it is
WP:TOOSOON, rather than being fundamentally damaging. This does seem like a classic darts wikipedia trope lately; people rushing to the Articles for Deletion page, when a softer approach (finding sources, or a redirect/draft change) would achieve a desirable outcome in a less hostile manner.
212.115.159.212 (
talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note - Superceded below now that time has passed
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- That would suggest that the other articles in this vein are also notable, which I don't think they are.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
23:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- A point I made elsewhere in exactly the same discussion about another article - there are no rules for darts here. Rather than the constant stream of darts articles for deletion, which descend into "is this tournament notable or not", there should be an attempt to write that down on the sports notability page so that every single article isn't constantly nominated for deletion. Then at that point, people can run around deleting stuff if the consensus says that they should. 91.110.52.206 ( talk) 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- That would suggest that the other articles in this vein are also notable, which I don't think they are.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
23:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus at this point seems to be roughly against keeping this article, but a redirect and draftifying the article have both been suggested as alternatives for deletion, so there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus about what to do about the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk) 11:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - since the AfD has begun, there have been dozens of edits to the article. And not a single in-depth source from an independent, reliable, secondary reference. Onel5969 TT me 17:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm now changing my vote, since the tournament has happened. Rather than rush to delete, the appropriate action for editors is to find relevant sources for the material, rather than delete it because someone who came before them didn't do it already. Then if you find they don't exist, fair enough - rather than complain someone else didn't do it.
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- What sources are here that suggests this does meet GNG, if that's the case?
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- The absence of the sources does not mean that the article does not meet GNG. It means that either (a) People didn't look for them, or (b) People did look for them and they don't exist. Only (b) would lead the conclusion that it does not meet GNG, and thus far no one has said that the sources don't exist; only that the sources were not included in the article. This is a key distinction in this discussion; I am sure you would accept that if suitable secondary and reliable sources could be found, it would establish that it met GNG.
- There was extensive discussion in similar circumstances regarding the
2023 PDC World Darts Championship. While nobody in that discussion suggested it wasn't notable, it had the same absence of secondary sources when it was originally created. Therefore, someone came along and found the sources and added them to the article. That approach could be taken here.
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
20:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- For example, Googling found
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4], and other news stories about individual matches like
[5] and
[6]. So this article meets GNG if only someone would properly source it rather than rush to delete it.
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
21:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I got six instances of "page not found" from those sources.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
21:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- And you didn't think to click "Edit" to see that they were just an error in wiki editing? Come on now. To make sure a similar mistake is not made this time: https://www.sportinglife.com/darts/news/international-darts-open-2023-draw-schedule-results-odds-and-tv-coverage-details/208386 -- https://www.live-darts.com/pdc-darts-news/european-tour/international-darts-open-2023-schedule/ -- https://www.planetsport.com/darts/news/michael-smith-dimitri-van-den-bergh-crash-day-two-international-darts-open -- https://www.darts1.de/european-tour/international-darts-open.php -- https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/other-sports/4272148/alan-soutar-peter-wright/ -- https://www.sportinglife.com/darts/news/darts-results-gabriel-clemens-stuns-simon-whitlock-in-germany/208421 91.110.52.206 ( talk) 22:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I got six instances of "page not found" from those sources.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
21:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- For example, Googling found
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4], and other news stories about individual matches like
[5] and
[6]. So this article meets GNG if only someone would properly source it rather than rush to delete it.
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
21:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- "The absence of the sources does not mean that the article does not meet GNG." Closer should make note of this comment when evaluating IP's comments. //
Timothy ::
talk
21:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's clear from the context that it meant the absence of them "in this article", as opposed to their absence "per se". 91.110.52.206 ( talk) 22:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- What sources are here that suggests this does meet GNG, if that's the case?
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Aoidh ( talk) 05:57, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
2023 International Darts Open
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- 2023 International Darts Open ( | 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)
Was redirected, since it has an utter lack of independent sourcing, but that was reverted. Would have draftified, but that would have been tantamount to a backdoor deletion since the creator of the article has been banned from editing Darts articles, in part for creating articles like this. Searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to pass WP:GNG. A redirect was appropriate until perhaps the tournament began to be played, but as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 PDC Players Championship series, that might not happen. Onel5969 TT me 14:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Sports, and Germany. Shellwood ( talk) 14:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep I don't see how this article is any different from any of the other articles about European Tour events that have been created over the years. The event is only two weeks away so deleting it, only to recreate it once the event has happened seems utterly pointless.
Dergraaf (
talk)
15:25, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's why it should have been left as a redirect.
Onel5969
TT me
17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- So what are you actually objecting to? Is it the existence of the article at all, or just that it was created too early? I think once the qualifiers have taken place and the field is confirmed is a reasonable time to create the article. Dergraaf ( talk) 17:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- That's why it should have been left as a redirect.
Onel5969
TT me
17:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - The tournament is about to start, it has a bunch of names who are clearly notable due to wikipedia entries here and it just seems like that if it goes today, it'll be able to be posted in 3 weeks without an issue. Maybe it was written a little
WP:TOOSOON, but that may be solved before the outcome is even determined here.
KatoKungLee (
talk)
19:31, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Something containing a list of notable people doesn't make that person notable. Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 07:04, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please note that neither of the above keep !votes are based in policy. Onel5969 TT me 01:11, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- And KatoKungLee has also been blocked as a
WP:SOCK, so their votes should be ignored as per
WP:DENY.
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- They have been unblocked, so that does no langer apply. T v x1 18:47, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- And KatoKungLee has also been blocked as a
WP:SOCK, so their votes should be ignored as per
WP:DENY.
Joseph
2302 (
talk)
09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- redirect per
GNG to either
2023 PDC Pro Tour, or create a
2023 PDC European Tour and redirect these articles to - they fail to draw enough coverage for us to have an article on each one.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
07:05, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- If they draw enough coverage such that they can meet
WP:GNG, e.g. with reliable secondary sources, isn't that the litmus test of whether or not they "draw enough coverage"?
212.115.159.212 (
talk)
23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- yes, my WP:BEFORE didn't bring up anywhere near enough to meet GNG.
- Lee Vilenski ( talk • contribs) 23:28, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- If they draw enough coverage such that they can meet
WP:GNG, e.g. with reliable secondary sources, isn't that the litmus test of whether or not they "draw enough coverage"?
212.115.159.212 (
talk)
23:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete no evidence this event passes WP:GNG, as all coverage is primary and/or trivial. Or redirect, if that's more appropriate. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 09:03, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
- Delete: per nom. Fails GNG and EVENT. Sources in article are all primary, BEFORE showed nothing that meets IS RS with SIGCOV addressing the subject directly and indepth. No objection to a redirect if there is a consensus on a target, but the article should be deleted first to remove unsourced names of living persons, without deletion I do not support a redirect. // Timothy :: talk 23:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
- Draftify: To use your wording! It is clearly going to meet
WP:GNG once it starts, or perhaps a little beforehand, just like all the other PDC European Tour tournaments do. The crime here is that it is
WP:TOOSOON, rather than being fundamentally damaging. This does seem like a classic darts wikipedia trope lately; people rushing to the Articles for Deletion page, when a softer approach (finding sources, or a redirect/draft change) would achieve a desirable outcome in a less hostile manner.
212.115.159.212 (
talk) 23:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC) Note - Superceded below now that time has passed
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- That would suggest that the other articles in this vein are also notable, which I don't think they are.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
23:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
- A point I made elsewhere in exactly the same discussion about another article - there are no rules for darts here. Rather than the constant stream of darts articles for deletion, which descend into "is this tournament notable or not", there should be an attempt to write that down on the sports notability page so that every single article isn't constantly nominated for deletion. Then at that point, people can run around deleting stuff if the consensus says that they should. 91.110.52.206 ( talk) 15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- That would suggest that the other articles in this vein are also notable, which I don't think they are.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
23:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus at this point seems to be roughly against keeping this article, but a redirect and draftifying the article have both been suggested as alternatives for deletion, so there doesn't seem to be a clear consensus about what to do about the article.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aoidh ( talk) 11:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
- Comment - since the AfD has begun, there have been dozens of edits to the article. And not a single in-depth source from an independent, reliable, secondary reference. Onel5969 TT me 17:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - I'm now changing my vote, since the tournament has happened. Rather than rush to delete, the appropriate action for editors is to find relevant sources for the material, rather than delete it because someone who came before them didn't do it already. Then if you find they don't exist, fair enough - rather than complain someone else didn't do it.
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
15:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- What sources are here that suggests this does meet GNG, if that's the case?
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- The absence of the sources does not mean that the article does not meet GNG. It means that either (a) People didn't look for them, or (b) People did look for them and they don't exist. Only (b) would lead the conclusion that it does not meet GNG, and thus far no one has said that the sources don't exist; only that the sources were not included in the article. This is a key distinction in this discussion; I am sure you would accept that if suitable secondary and reliable sources could be found, it would establish that it met GNG.
- There was extensive discussion in similar circumstances regarding the
2023 PDC World Darts Championship. While nobody in that discussion suggested it wasn't notable, it had the same absence of secondary sources when it was originally created. Therefore, someone came along and found the sources and added them to the article. That approach could be taken here.
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
20:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- For example, Googling found
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4], and other news stories about individual matches like
[5] and
[6]. So this article meets GNG if only someone would properly source it rather than rush to delete it.
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
21:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I got six instances of "page not found" from those sources.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
21:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- And you didn't think to click "Edit" to see that they were just an error in wiki editing? Come on now. To make sure a similar mistake is not made this time: https://www.sportinglife.com/darts/news/international-darts-open-2023-draw-schedule-results-odds-and-tv-coverage-details/208386 -- https://www.live-darts.com/pdc-darts-news/european-tour/international-darts-open-2023-schedule/ -- https://www.planetsport.com/darts/news/michael-smith-dimitri-van-den-bergh-crash-day-two-international-darts-open -- https://www.darts1.de/european-tour/international-darts-open.php -- https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/sport/other-sports/4272148/alan-soutar-peter-wright/ -- https://www.sportinglife.com/darts/news/darts-results-gabriel-clemens-stuns-simon-whitlock-in-germany/208421 91.110.52.206 ( talk) 22:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I got six instances of "page not found" from those sources.
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
21:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- For example, Googling found
[1],
[2],
[3],
[4], and other news stories about individual matches like
[5] and
[6]. So this article meets GNG if only someone would properly source it rather than rush to delete it.
91.110.52.206 (
talk)
21:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- "The absence of the sources does not mean that the article does not meet GNG." Closer should make note of this comment when evaluating IP's comments. //
Timothy ::
talk
21:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- It's clear from the context that it meant the absence of them "in this article", as opposed to their absence "per se". 91.110.52.206 ( talk) 22:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- What sources are here that suggests this does meet GNG, if that's the case?
Lee Vilenski (
talk •
contribs)
19:06, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- 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.