Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 PDC Pro Tour


 * 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. Since being relisted twice, no additional users have commented. Bold close. (non-admin closure)  D u s t i *poke* 19:28, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

2013 PDC Pro Tour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Does not appear to pass the requirements laid down in WP:SPORTCRIT. Coverage is either from Professional Darts Corporation (PDC.tv), Scandanavian Darts Corporation (SDC), or closely associated darts sources. Does not establish the coverage outside of the sport, does not establish the enduring notability (there was a tour last year, and probably will be a tour next year), and does not transcend the routine coverage of the individual events Hasteur (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * It's a darts tour featuring all of the best players in the world. It can be said of any sport that there is a tour this year and will be one next year.... I fail to see the difference between this page and the one for golf. That page certainly does not transcend the coverage of the individual events. Similar pages also exist for snooker events as seen here. The references for both the golf page and the snooker page come from primary sources or sources closely associated with the sport so if this page is to be deleted then why are they not? Spc 21 (talk) 23:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Evaluate this AfD on its own merits. The golf tour has coverage outside of the specialized field.  The snooker may or may not have coverage outside its field, but the majority of coverage in terms of referencs is from the Professional Darts Corporation which suggests that there is little notability outside the world of professional darts competition. Hasteur (talk) 03:39, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Having had a quick look for references I have added over 20 secondary sources on the page which seems to suggest there is coverage outside of the PDC website and the notability you have questioned.... Might I suggest next time you use talk pages instead of nominating articles for deletion? Spc 21 (talk) 14:36, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'd say keep now. -Koppapa (talk) 16:56, 13 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Theopolisme ( talk )  03:52, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Should never have been up in the first place. Spc 21 (talk) 19:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there was a reasonable question as to its independent notability at the time of nomination. That I had to give the article a kick to have the notability demonstrated only shows that the article's primary author, Spc 21, knows how to properly demonstrate independent notability and referencing but instead was more interested in being lazy and throwing accusations of bad faith. Every article that doesn't demonstrate meeting the criteria can have the question called. Hasteur (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Just for clarification - you are voting to keep the article now? Have fun nominating other good articles in the future.... What a worthwhile life you lead my friend. Keep it up! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spc 21 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Spc 21, please remember to treat others with civility. czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. The PDC.tv website is merely used as the official reference for the results of various events in a similar sense as the FIFA website might be used as a reference for the results of World Cup qualification matches, or the UEFA website for European Cup matches. As the sport's governing body, they (the PDC) are the official scorekeeper. This does not mean there aren't other sources out there, there are, but merely that the PDC website is cited as the most official one (or rather the official one, it could be argued). After the conclusion of tournaments there is often mention of the results and other noteworthy developments (unexpected wins or losses, farings of popular players) in various official newspapers, such as The Guardian (UK), Der Spiegel (Germany) and de Volkskrant (Netherlands). SkySports does a lot of coverage for English speaking countries, Sport1.de does coverage for Germany, these both being sports news organizations. Finally, there are a number of dedicated darts news websites that report on ProTour events (for example, in English: dartsmad.com, a180darts.co.uk; in Dutch: dartinfo.nl, dartfreakz.nl; there are many more, but I thought I'd just mention these few to give a general impression). So in summation, there is coverage from the sport's governing body (PDC), newspapers, dedicated sports news organizations and dedicted darts news organizations. It should be noted there is more coverage from countries where darts is popular - notably the UK, Netherlands and Germany (but also Belgium, Austria, Australia) - then from countries where it is not - the USA. However, I would argue there is little value in citing a Dutch or German language source for the English version of wikipedia. I would also argue that this does not detract from notability, there is little reporting on baseball or American football outside of the USA (or cricket outside of the countries the Commonwealth), but this does not mean it is not notable to those that do take an interest in it. Here is an article from a Belgian newspaper (HLN.be) about Playerschampionship 2, a Player's Championship event. This is just an ordinary newspaper that has nothing to do with darts or the PDC. Here is an article from Sport1.de about the European Darts Open, a European Tour event. Sport1.de is just a general German sports news organization that has nothing in particular to do with darts. These were found using Google->News and entering the name of the tournament in addition to the winner of the tournament. Or by using the name of the place the tournament was held (e.g. Wigan, Düsseldorf) in combination with its winner. Many more sources like this can be found, so I would like invite anyone to see how many results are obtained by going to Google and entering a tournament's name. Finally, the WP:SPORTCRIT referenced by the OP states: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she...". It is about the notability of sportspersons, not of the sport itself, or in this case, a series of sporting events. This is also evidenced further on, when it is stated: "The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect ... that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards ... if they have ... participated in a major international ... competition at the highest level". The page in question is precisely about such a series of international competitions, not about the sportspersons that have participated in them. Would it be desirable that when sportspersons that have participated in international competitions are notable, the very competitions that they have parcipated in are themselves not notable? Furthermore, the articles on the ProTour of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 are not nominated for deletion. It would be very odd indeed to delete the article on the ProTour of 2013 and not those on the ProTour of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. Will there be a discussion again on the article on the ProTour of 2014? The articles on the ProTour of 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 should therefore be nominated for deletion as well. For the reasons I have outlined above I feel notability can be established and the article should be kept, but also that a discussion should be held on whether, in citing references for the results of ProTour event, it is more desirable to use sources from the PDC (as the sport's official governing body) or newspaper articles. dnacrystal (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2013 (UTC) dnacrystal (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC) — 145.97.195.247 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC) (UTC).
 * Note: Dnacrystal is not a registered user and this comment was left by 145.97.195.247. czar   &middot;   &middot;  05:12, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note2: I have registered an account and signed the comment to clear up any ambiguity. dnacrystal (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Finally someone with a bit of sense.Spc 21 (talk) 01:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:02, 25 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisting admin comment - This looks like a straight forward keep, however, I'm not convinced that all the accounts above are different users. I'm relisting this discussion so we can have wider input from more experienced users.  Ryan Postlethwaite See the mess I've created or let's have banter 19:04, 25 June 2013 (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.