Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-cushion billiards at the 2017 World Games – men's singles


 * 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. See also Articles for deletion/Denmark at the 2017 World Championships in Athletics for a similar case. Either consensus exists to have such articles in general or it doesn't but AFD is not the right forum to discuss this in general and while here there was no consensus to delete, nominating such articles for AFD on a large scale will most likely disrupt the process until there is clear consensus whether such articles should exist at all.  So Why  10:35, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Three-cushion billiards at the 2017 World Games – men's singles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No evidence of WP:GNG notabilty. - MrX 18:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * 2017 World Games is a major international multi-sport event. I think it should meet WP:NSPORTS. Also, there will be more sources when the event is finished.--QBear (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep As long as reliable sources can be used to flesh out the article when the games are finished.TH1980 (talk) 02:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:13, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. The World Games are clearly a notable event, essentially like the Olympics for non-Olympic sports. I have to wonder why nominator decided to pick this article off specifically if he feels this kind of article is not inherently notable, when so many others exist - literally thousands. This is not the way to do that. Smartyllama (talk) 12:42, 1 August 2017 (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.