Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of cue sports


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Bait30   Talk 2 me pls? 22:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Comparison of cue sports

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnecessary and clear WP:OR REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 12:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  REDMAN 2019  ( talk ) 12:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * keep - how is this OR? It's quite well sourced. It's also clearly quite an important comparison to make between very similar games. I don't get this AfD nomination at all.Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cue sports-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski  (talk • contribs) 12:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. There are perhaps a few unsourced statements which may raise objections, like "Serious players of both types of cue sports generally prefer fast cloth", but overall, this article does seem to be rather well-sourced for what it is. Actually, to be honest, when it comes to these kinds of niche articles, I really just don't mind that kind of thing. If this kind of article is completely sterilized of all statements like that, or even deleted (which, my goodness, I think is an extreme step to take), the project would become impoverished for it. BirdValiant (talk) 13:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, per discussion. Well sourced and notable page. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per all of the above. Even the few unsourced statements can be sourced (they're not controversial, anyway, I would think, so they satisfy WP:V's expectation that material be verifi not necessarily verifi yet, absent a likelihood of editorial dispute or reader skepticism).  A couple of years ago, I could have just fixed those myself, when I had almost every cue-sports-related book in print (and many no longer in print) in my library of 5,000+ books. But I had to downsize when moving into a small apartment instead of a big converted warehouse space.  If anything has crept in that appears to be PoV or OR (especially personal analysis/evaluation/synthesis), just remove that part.  While we do not have a lot of comparison articles like this, Comparison of cue sports is of particular value, because the games/disciplines are all closely related but have widely divergent rules, terminology, etc. Many if not most of our readers will be very familiar with one variant or another but not the rest of them, and will be apt to make incorrect assumptions about similar-looking games. So, we have to cover these differences somewhere.  To distinguish them in full detail at multiple articles would be extremely repetitive, and likely to lead to content-forking (e.g. an article on pool not listing the same differences from snooker as were listed from pool at a snooker article, and so on). I think  wrote most of it, specifically because of the need to put the bulk of this compare/contrast information in a central place.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:47, 6 July 2020 (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.