Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BowlsEnglandChampions


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 17:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

BowlsEnglandChampions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A huge uncited list of Bowls champions from England, with no article and no references to go with it. Even if it were in the form of an article, and even if the article had references and proper context, it's not clear to me that this meets notability requirements, since there's no context for the particular competitions either. It's not quite "indiscriminate" information, but close enough not to be an encyclopedia article. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Fast delete. No inbound links, no context, no references = junk. --hydrox (talk)"


 * Keep. Could someone please explain to me as to why this is up for deletion?! This article has been extensively researched over more than 12 months from old paper sources by many people. There is a lot more information to be added and cleaning up and formatting to be done.  All existing records were lost by the national governing body 3 years ago, therefore this is an extremely important historical record for bowlers.  Kamikaze josh (talk
 * Then please cite the sources, even when it's just the news papers. Nageh (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. An extensive entry. It seems there is a vendetta to rid Wikipedia of any British events, quite unfairly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lbu98mlb (talk • contribs) 20:22, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Move to List of Bowls England champions. It'd be great if the documents that the research has been compiled on would be cited. matt91486 (talk) 21:16, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Break up This article contains unique information not found anywhere else. Opps. That's OR then or it needs a better title and clearer scope. Spartaz Humbug! 04:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as this entirely novel list topic contravene the prohibition on original research. As far as I can see, this list, or anything like it, has not be been published anywhere except within Wikipedia, so there is no evidence that it is verifiable, let alone notable. To demonstrate that this topic was not created out of thin air, a verifiable definition is needed to comply with content policy. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 07:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mike Cline (talk) 08:28, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Listify (e.g., List of Bowls England champions), and provide the references. Nageh (talk) 09:12, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep   significant summarized information--it does not particularly matter whether it is arranged as a table or a list.  DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 25 April 2010 (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.