Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XTERRA Triathlon


 * 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. Nja 247 09:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

XTERRA Triathlon

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No sources on the page at all and no assertion of notability per the guidelines on notability. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * obvious keep. Not a well-written article (yet), but the subject is certainly notable. Even on the article page as it stands you can see that the champions include an Olympic gold medallist and an Olympic silver medallist. The article's flaws re sourcing, etc will be fixed in due course, and are not a reason for deletion. NSH001 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep as per NSH. After ITU and Ironman events, possibily the 3rd most important triathlon series of events. Yboy83 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per NSH001. Notable international sporting competition with plenty of international reliable source coverage available to satisfy the general notability guideline and WP:ORG (see a gnews search, for example).  I don't know what to think of the article's claims that Nissan named their XTERRA SUV after the series, or that the series is "considered by most to be the de-facto world championship of the sport", but it doesn't need those claims to survive.  Lack of sourcing is not a valid reason for deletion unless it's not possible to source the article, which is not the case here.  Baileypalblue (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IF the article is kept (I have no opinion), it has to be moved to Xterra Triathlon per WP:MOS.  TJ   Spyke   20:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * If there is reason to keep it, it's not on the page as there is not a single source that asserts notability. If I WP:PROVEIT down to what's sourced, it'd be an empty page.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:11, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You are certainly entitled to WP:BOLDly remove contentious, unsourced claims from the article, and see whether a consensus develops in favor of your edits. I would not recommend removing uncontentious material from the article, or blanking the page, as you suggest you might do.  It's not necessary to have citations for every uncontentious statement in an article, and given your expressed intent to delete the article, pageblanking might be construed as a POINTed effort to evade the consensus that simple lack of sourcing in an article is not grounds for deletion.  Quoting from WP:PROVEIT:"it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."  I recommend you make such efforts before removing material.  Baileypalblue (talk) 22:54, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article may be in bad shape, but the subject is clearly notable as even the most cursory search will reveal. -- Whpq (talk) 16:18, 27 April 2009 (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.