Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Prix 2005 (snooker)

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. All the useful content - finalists and winners - are listed in the main article so according to the consensus here, separate article are unnecessary. A redirect is an option but I'll delete all for now. The copyright is not an issue in this case, I believe. Tone 10:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Prix 2005 (snooker)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm nominating a whole set of these (list below). They are bare results from presumably a snooker tournament. Wikipedia is not an almanac of sports results or a directory. I wouldn't have a problem if these had article content, but they're not. They may have even been copy pasted from Snooker database, possibly bringing up some copyright issues.

Shadowjams (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and per the copyvio concerns. Cunard (talk) 07:23, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this does not violate the copyright policy, I would have no issues with a redirect to Grand Prix (snooker) as the best alternative to deletion. Cunard (talk) 20:26, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deadly dull they may be as articles, but this is a major international snooker tournament - see Grand Prix (snooker). Personally, I have no strong feelings one way or the other about the deletion/keeping of these articles, but anyone proposing deletion should consider that there are countless similar pages for just about every other sporting tournament, competition, season. Perhaps they should go too? Emeraude (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 02:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps they should. This kind of statistics cruft is acceptable if it's combined with article content, but this is a pretty blatant example of just loads of stats copied in, probably from another source. Shadowjams (talk) 19:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Grand Prix (snooker). This is a major international tournament in the sport, but it would be better to have the information in the main article. Edward321 (talk) 12:34, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Wikify to Grand Prix (snooker). As said above, this is a major international tournament, but an article for each individual year is probably overkill. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:34, 1 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect all to Grand Prix (snooker). Is it really necessary to list all the winner and the semi-finalists and the quarter-finalists and the last 16 and the last 32? Just list the winners and give the source for the whole listing. At most merge the semi-finalists. --Enric Naval (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:03, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although there are many similar topics on Wikipedia, the suspect provenance of these lists, and the inclusion of the 16 semi-semi-semifinalists is inappropriate. The annual winners and their final opponent are already listed in Grand Prix (snooker). Abductive (reasoning) 06:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.