Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Sequence Championships


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 00:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

British Sequence Championships

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Dance competition with no clear notability. Only primary sources (those of the organizers and those of the individual competitors) are used in the article, and Google comes up with nothing of note. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 03:57, 12 April 2010 (UTC) *Merge to Blackpool Dance Festival, where this can be covered in better context, and redirect. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC) - The Blackpool Dance Festival is a separate event, which does not include Sequence Dancing.  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 10:57, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - As the national championship event it is clearly a noteworthy encyclopedia reference. Secondary sources have been provided in the form of journals, and regional newspaper references, you just needed to give me a little more time!  Hopefully this should satisfy the rules, and I can continue to complete this information source. (Lbu98mlb (talk) 19:13, 13 April 2010 (UTC))
 * Keep Good spread of secondary sources to improve the articles notability. Article is well linked to other articles in the category. Good historical reference of the National champions in this country. Swj8307 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Article is a huge, inappropriate list of winners and runners-up. Coverage is confined to offline specialized media. I searched Google News by "Sequence Dancing" and surnames of the most recent winners and found nothing. I searched by "Sequence Dancing Championship" and "Sequence Dance Championship" and found nothing. The British press is usually very keen on publishing material on such topics. Abductive  (reasoning) 16:07, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Article clearly has reliable sources, independant of the subject as per Wikipedias own notability guidelines.  Why would a list of winners of a national title be innappropriate?  Clearly this is the sort of item which is worthy of entry.  Great care has been taken to source the information and find appropriate citations.  Lbu98mlb (talk) 18:36, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Striking double vote by user unfamiliar with AfD and (it seems) WP:Notability. Abductive  (reasoning) 18:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not being familiar with the numerous rules. Whilst it is clear that I am a new user, I have read the articles on notability and have clearly provided many references, which was the earlier criticism.  Regional news articles and published books in my mind, do not constitute 'specialized media'.  Perhaps you should read the guidelines on Wikietiquette. Lbu98mlb (talk) 19:47, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I find the references insufficient. That's how these AfDs go; people make statements and the closing admin weighs them. There is no need to rebut every statement. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:00, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 21:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Much better sourced now; appears to meet WP:GNG, although only by a small margin. Alzarian16 (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - Professionally notable. Limeisneom (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep- well referenced article. Nickeeeey (talk) 11:37, 3 May 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.