Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 WSF Championship


 * 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 no consensus‎__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  14:11, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

2018 WSF Championship

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No evidence that this championship was notable; almost all citations come from the league itself. Efforts to redirect this have failed. Chris Troutman ( talk )  16:44, 23 February 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 1 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.   Chris Troutman  ( talk )  16:45, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Cue sports,  and Malta.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  17:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is so easy to find many non-league sources:       etc. The top-tournament for amateur players, the same as  (with articles for each year). The winner took a license for a World Snooker Tour. Teterev53 (talk) 20:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Are any of those URLs reliable sources? I don't think that they are.  Chris Troutman  ( talk )  21:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, the first link is that of the Governing body. SnookerHQ is generally deemed as a RS. I don't think Inside the Game is. I don't have any opinions on the other links. My issue isn't that the result wasn't covered (it will have been), it's whether it's WP:ROUTINE or if it's simply just stating who won, which could be summarised in the series article.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 21:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.