Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snooker league


 * 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   delete -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Snooker league

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Subject of the article fails the general notability guideline and thus is non-notable. Armbrust Talk to me about my editsreview  16:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   05:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

 
 * Delete. Any individual professional league is likely to be notable, and some non-professional leagues may be notable, but we already have a sports league article, and it seems totally redundant to have general articles on every sport+league combination. I suppose a redirect to Sports league would be harmless enough but I'm not sure it would really be useful to anyone. --Michig (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 11:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Whatever is sourced and worth keeping in this article can be merged into Snooker. MakeSense64 (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete No citation, non-notable one -- C h i n n Z      ( talk &#124;  Contrib ) 15:02, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't deserve its own article. Content could be merged into the Snooker article, governance section as noted above, but given that the article is unsourced and written with an informal tone, it would have to be rewritten and thoroughly sourced before this could be done. Nwlaw63 (talk) 21:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete as lacking in-depth coverage in reliable, independent third-party sources. Should such sources be integrated into the article, feel free to leave a note on my talk page and I'll take another look. Stuartyeates (talk) 04:50, 10 December 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.