Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ten-pin bowlers


 * 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. Eddie891 Talk Work 11:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

List of ten-pin bowlers

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Indiscriminate list. Doesn't meet WP:LISTN or WP:GNG. No clear ATD. Boleyn (talk) 09:20, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  Megan Barris   (Lets talk📧)  09:47, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep The list is not indiscriminate as its focus is clear and specific.  It meets WP:LISTN and WP:GNG because there are entire books written about bowling and bowlers including The Bowling Chronicles which "presents portraits of Dick Weber, Don Carter, Marion Ladewig and other tenpin immortals"; They Came to Bowl: How Milwaukee Became America's Tenpin Capital; and the Historical Dictionary of Bowling which "contains over 500 cross-referenced entries on professional and amateur bowlers, bowling coaches, writers and other contributors to the sport of bowling".  If we look at the first entry in the list – Jason Belmonte – we see that they are a successful professional.  Their article is in category:Australian ten-pin bowling players which is one of many sub-categories in category:Ten-pin bowling players and so WP:CLN applies, explaining that we don't delete lists to favour categories.  Finally, WP:ATD certainly applies because it states that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  So, the nomination is a complete failure and that's a strike!  Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. I'm baffled by this nomination. pburka (talk) 11:05, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I agree it's indiscriminate and should probably be deleted, but there are some notable players in it and Andrew Davidson provided a few sources. Although, I could gripe they are about "bowlers" and not "ten-pin bowlers." Which is kind of different IMO. My suggestion would be to clean it up, AfD the articles about non-notable players in the list (which there seems to be many), create a "list of bowlers" article or something that contains the actually notable ones that also includes non-10-pin bowlers, and then do another AfD for this in 6 months. That includes redirecting to somewhere (maybe list of bowlers) as an alternative to deletion. That's the only way I think your going to make a good case to delete to enough people. Also, in the meantime you could probably chop down on the categories and other things Andrew cited as a way to handwave his keep vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:25, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. Obviously all the red links should be removed and the notability of many of the bio's questioned. However there seem to be a few notable entries to justify a list. Ajf773 (talk) 11:36, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There should be no rush to remove red links because one of the advantages of a list is that it will support redlinks and so help in developing a neglected set of topics. For example, consider the second entry in the list, Sam Cooley.  There's no article for them yet but they are a world-class bowler, holding a world-championship and with professional earnings of over $100K. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * A reliable source will also suffice. And entries can be re-added. Ajf773 (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep passes WP:NLIST This list aides our readers in finding this information. Focussed and narrow list. Wm335td (talk) 02:13, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, one of many recent meritless nominations of navigational lists by User:Boleyn. We list articles by what they are just as we categorize them by what they are. postdlf (talk) 14:42, 22 August 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.