Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Six-red World Championship


 * 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   procedural close. AfD is not the right venue for this discussion. (non-admin closure) Logan Talk Contributions 04:48, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Six-red World Championship

 * – ( View AfD View log )

There is no need for a summary article for a tournament, which was only held once, if that years event has an article. There is also a tournament with a similar name (Sangsom Six-red World Championship), which should be moved to this title and with this we could remove the sponsors name from the title of the article. Armbrust WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  21:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Support – This was a one-off event and is already covered at 2009 Six-red World Championship, and the umbrella article is unnecessary. The Snooker Project would like to free up the name for the current Six-red world championship residing at Sangsom Six-red World Championship, since this is the event most readers will be looking for if they are searching for the "six red world championship". Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * In that case this should be moved to a disambiguated title, not deleted. wjemather bigissue 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Procedural keep. As far as I can tell this is not intended to be a deletion discussion as evidenced by the total lack of rationale for deletion. What we actually have is a kind of complicated merge and move request that does not belong here. Best withdrawn and a better venue found. wjemather bigissue 11:05, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge content from here into 2009 article and delete this. The reason being that this article was wanted as all year this event was set to take place but it didn't now likely to be just a one off event. KnowIG (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * A one off tournament does not need the year in the title of the article, so your reasoning would require the other article to be merged into this one. wjemather bigissue 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The option KnowIG proposing is also a nonsense, you can't merge and delete an article per WP:MAD. Furthermore as I see, there is nothing to merge. Armbrust  WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  17:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From looking more closely the main article is appalingly written with far more prose in the year article so I'm changing my mind and saying delete as it says the same stuff.
 * Er, no it doesn't. For a start nowhere in the 2009 article does it say it is the inaugural edition or that no further editions have been held. Equally this article does not contain any of the details of the tournament (draw, maximum breaks, etc.). I repeat, this is not a deletion request. If another article should have this title per WP:PRIME then move this one to a disambiguated title. If a merge of the two articles is desired, either just do it or discuss it somewhere else and then do it (or not). wjemather bigissue 19:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Procedural (and speedy) keep, for reasons given above. This isn't the right venue for a merge discussion, per WP:MERGE (one does need to happen; don't care which direction, since one article title will be a redir to the other anyway). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ  Contribs. 05:34, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't proposed any sort of merge. The article was created too early, after the 2009 event and serves no encyclopaedic purpose. If shouldn't created after only one event at all and now just stands in the way of a page move, so it should go. There's nothing which should be merged at all. Armbrust  WrestleMania XXVII  Undertaker 19–0  15:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, we absolutely do not delete articles just because they stand in the way of a page move. There was nothing preventing you from moving this article to an alternative title to make way for the other article (or asking someone to do it for you). Also, to repeat myself again, a merge would be needed since both articles contain content that is not in the other. For both tasks, AfD is absolutely the wrong venue. <sub style="color:#007700;">wjemather <sup style="color:#ff8040;">bigissue 15:34, 6 March 2011 (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.