Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 New Zealand Open Grand Prix


 * 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. Kurykh (talk) 19:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

2014 New Zealand Open Grand Prix

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable badminton tournament. Only reference is to a results database. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 23:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Xaxing (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:39, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:51, 8 February 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete as lacking in-depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:19, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
 * keep it was notable badminton tournament and the highest level tournament in NZ.Stvbastian (talk) 21:16, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 05:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. If this was really as prestigious as suggested above, there would be more than two sources from the same website. Laurdecl talk 09:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Laurdecl, which 'notability guideline' said a page is non-notable if it doesn't have more than two sources from the same website? Stvbastian (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:GNG. Laurdecl talk 22:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Laurdecl I can't find the statement about two sources from the same website. Can you help me to cite it? Stvbastian (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest you actually read it. Try, for example, the first line. Laurdecl talk 02:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I'll also point out that things like: "This international event offers a great platform to showcase Auckland to the important Asian investor, education and visitor markets." are very unencyclopedic and bordering on advertisement. Laurdecl talk 02:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no statement in WP:GNG talk about a page is non-notable if it doesn't have more than two sources from the same website. And this page became non-notable because only have a reference on the external links about results database. Since i already add some references its already meet WP:GNG and WP:SPORTSEVENT. Now you talk about unencyclopedic and bordering on advertisement. I know it was not independent, but i think it just needs to be edited only. Stvbastian (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per nom. Fails WP:SIGCOV. DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 09:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * keep. Significant coverage criterion would appear to be satisfied by the fact that two sources - Badzine.net and the Sunday Star Times - both had news articles that include the name of the tournament in the title of their articles and that the the Badminton World Federation had a fact page about it.  In addition to the three independent sources cited in the actual article, Getty Images had photos, the NZHerald had at least one story, and so did the Indonesian Badminton Association.  As for 'unencyclopedic' content, I believe deletion of such sentences is the standard remedy, rather than deletion of entire articles and that appears have been taken care of, for the sentence quoted by User:Laurdecl above. --Donaldinyongin (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete – doesn't appear to meet GNG or SIGCOV. A quick look at some Google News results doesn't indicate any notability.  J 947  09:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - searches did not turn up enough in-depth coverage to show that it passes WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 23:48, 25 February 2017 (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.