Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 PDC 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. Seraphimblade Talk to me 08:01, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

2023 PDC Calendar

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

Zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG.  Onel 5969  TT me 15:46, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   19:25, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 16:04, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a terrible nomination, moreover using false arguments. The major source is from the official PDC website. Moreover, there are other independent sources as well. The calendar itself is a very useful and clear source of information about all the events taking place under the PDC banner in a given year. I myself use it regularly. I don't see a single reason to delete this valuable piece of information. Penepi (talk) 16:16, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Other than your personal attack on the article (which you have since changed), you should understand that primary sources do not establish notability.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:24, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you're bringing it up, when - as you write yourself - I deleted it MYSELF in the meantime. I'm sorry if I touched your fragile ego, I hope you can deal with it. Now to the essentials -- the primary source does not rule out notability at the same time. This is an official source, it couldn't be more official, so where is the problem? It must be clear to you that the given source contains correct information. Or if I added some secondary source there, would it suddenly be sufficient? Actually, what you are proposing is to delete one valuable article on the basis that it now contains 'only' a primary source, despite the fact that the source is official and correct. Breathtaking. Penepi (talk) 18:39, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The official website may be reliable for content, but it does precisely nothing to establish notability or meet policy or guideline requirements. Significant coverage in independent sources is required. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment. Unless we have independent (preferably secondary) reliable sources discussing these "WP:NSEASONS" to a significant extent (not just routine reports containing little more than results) such that reasonable prose can be written, and/or if these calendars are simply duplicating the PDC website, then they are a clear policy fail. wjematherplease leave a message... 19:50, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem is that this pointing to different guidelines is nothing but nitpicking. With the vast majority of articles, one would be able to find some "criteria" that the given article does not meet and thus we could literally delete 99% of the articles. Specifically, according to your logic, for example, let's delete this as well. Penepi (talk) 20:51, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You seem to be missing the point of WP:AfD. It is not "to find some criteria that the given article does not meet", it is to confirm that it passes WP:GNG, i.e. "it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Whether the information is correct is not the issue here, it is whether the topic is notable. Clearly "the official PDC website" is not independent of the subject, it is their calendar. Also see Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. eg WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:USEFUL. Rather than lambasting editors for their comments, you need to be convincing them that it satisfies GNG. Nigej (talk) 14:22, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite naturally, every tournament has significant coverage in the media (i.e. reliable sources that are independent of the subject). Penepi (talk) 19:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The article is not about the individual tournaments, it's about the 2023 PDC Calendar. Is the "2023 PDC Calendar" a notable topic? GNG says that "A topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list when it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Has the "2023 PDC Calendar" received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Currently there's no indication that it has. Nigej (talk) 19:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Is this a notable topic? Is this a notable topic? And I could go on. Although formally the names of the articles are different, in fact they are the same - calendars. Then let's delete those too. Again, problems are being looked for where they are not under the guise of some officialdom. Penepi (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * See:  indicating that perhaps 2023 in association football is a notable topic. And you're still pushing the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Best to come up with positive reasons to keep it. After all I could use your argument to justify keeping an article on the Barnsley Darts League Calendar. Not all calendars are equal. Nigej (talk) 20:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * A truly fascinating argument. So actually the relevance of an article is determined solely by how frequently the given topic is mentioned in the media? So when there is a topic that could become popular, there is actually no chance because it is not in the media enough? Despite the fact that these are de facto the same thing (calendar), just in a different sport? Absolutely ridiculous. Penepi (talk) 21:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not my argument. It's the fundamental basis on which Wikipedia operates and it determines which articles we have. I'm absolutely amazed that you were not aware of it before. See WP:N WP:GNG. Nigej (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I could contribute to your amazement. Not everyone makes studying Wiki guidelines a priority in their lives. Anyway, you wanted examples of the notability of this topic, I provided them. In the case of football calendar, you used two articles to indicate its notability, I gave you three for darts, and I could go on. Penepi (talk) 07:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Maybe you should try to search better next time. See:
 * Please stop with these diversions; it is unproductive and irrelevant. If you want this article (and those for other years) to be kept you will need to show why this article meets policy and guidelines requirements. The usual means of doing this is by demonstrating the required coverage exists. wjematherplease leave a message... 20:30, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - Do we have ANY third-party sources talking about this subject, and how it meets WP:GNG and WP:NLIST?  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete all due to lack of sourcing that demonstrates notability of the calendar itself. The Wordsmith Talk to me 20:16, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Revoking my vote. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 07:44, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Only the Sky Sports article has any in-depth coverage (Live Darts is not a reliable source). Onel 5969  TT me 10:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Sporting Life has in depth coverage of every single tournament/final that has taken place so far. That's two independent sources covering the concept of the year 2023 in the PDC. There's also vast coverage on Online Darts. Your reason for nomination was "Zero in-depth coverage from independent reliable sources" - this is demonstrably untrue. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 10:48, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * That would go to the individual tournaments/final notability, not to the the notability of the calendar.  Onel 5969  TT me 16:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * All the events make up the PDC events in 2023? I think your issue seems to be with the concept of the name "PDC Calendar", so do you think the article should be renamed? All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 18:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The problem I have is that we already have an article 2023 PDC Pro Tour which covers many/most of these events. We also have 2023 PDC Players Championship series, 2023 PDC Challenge Tour series and 2023 PDC Women's Series. The 2023 PDC Calendar seems to duplicate much of these others articles. eg 2023 PDC Pro Tour is basically the same as the Players Championships (purple) entries here. As such it seems to me that the only justification for keeping this article would be if the "calendar" aspect of it was a well-discussed topic, which is pretty doubtful IMO. As it is it just looks like WP:INDISCRIMINATE and excessive stats, see WP:NOTSTATS. Nigej (talk) 19:20, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * 👍 Fair do's Nigej. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi. Nigej beat me to the punch.  No, I don't think it should be renamed.  We already have articles which cover the subject.  This is simply a list, without any substantial coverage.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:39, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * lol he hardly beat you to the punch when you proposed deletion seven days ago. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * lol... no, I meant his above response before I could respond to your question.  Onel 5969  TT me 19:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 * lol... no, your grounds for proposal are still invalid. Nigej has raised a highly pertinent point that you haven't in the past seven days, that's the reason for deletion, that the article already exists. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 20:01, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * merge and delete - we already have 2023 PDC Pro Tour, for where the notable events should be listed. We aren't a directory of all information about a subject.  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Merge/Delete Per my comments and Lee Vilenski's above. As noted, we also have 2023 PDC Pro Tour and the current article is largely a duplicate of that in a different (calendar, i.e. strictly chronological) form. Little evidence has been provided that this calendar aspect is notable. Nigej (talk) 07:45, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it.</b> 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.