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. Kurykh (talk) 23:59, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2017 Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts[edit]

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

These tournaments fail WP:GNG there is no indepth coverage and at best should have a redirect to the general pages about the tournament eg Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts. They fail the WP:NEVENTS and notably the WP:ROUTINE these are run of the mill provincial qualifier tournaments for a national competition. Domdeparis (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2017 (UTC) dombeparis STOP[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reasons:

Domdeparis (talk) 16:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets the criteria of WP:CURLING. It is a qualifier for one of the most important curling events in the world, the Scotties Tournament of Hearts (Canada has 90% of curlers in the world). Not only that, Manitoba is one of the strongest provinces too, so there should be plenty of external coverage. -- Earl Andrew - talk 16:39, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:CURLING is a project page and not a Wikipedia notability guideline page. All articles have to meet WP:GNG criteria. This is an event and has to meet WP:NEVENTS criteria. Your argument has to explain how these pages meet the criteria. If there is plenty of external coverage as you say then you should add it. I repeatedly tagged one of the articles with a notability tag which was systematically removed without providing in-depth coverage. I opened a discussion on the talk page which was ignored so the best place to discuss the notability is here I believe. Domdeparis (talk) 16:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was me that removed it (instead of the user that is new to Wikipedia, who you accused of doing it), because I had expanded the article enough in my mind. If you had pinged me, an established member of the project (and also the guilty party), I would have been happy to engage with you on the talk page. But anyways, I will state my case here a little more in depth; As I mentioned, most curlers in the world are in Canada, so most of the top curlers in the world are Canadian. There is a World Championships of course, but the national championship (the Scotties Tournament of Hearts is often perceived as being just as prestigious in the curling world. The provincial qualifiers are thus also a big deal, as they are the qualifying events for the national championship, and thus attract the top curlers in the world. The larger provinces have significant press coverage as any google search will reveal. Will you remove this AFD if I add more content with external coverage? -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:05, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, just to add some notable external sources that cover the provincial qualifiers on aggregate, Canada's two leading sports broadcasters regularly publish articles on the events and keep track of them. See here and here for examples. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:22, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure where you got the idea that I accused anyone I said that the tag was repeatedly removed but as an experienced editor you should really know when to remove templates as per Help:Maintenance template removal#When to remove. If you want the article to stay WP:GNG has to be met as does WP:NEVENTS this is far from the case at the moment. By the way if it was really you that removed the maintenance tags you might want to have a look at these diffs and explain what happened...I sincerely hope that you have not created sockpuppet accounts... diff 1 and diff 2 Domdeparis (talk) 17:23, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I was referring to this edit and didn't realize the other user was doing the same (rushed to judgment here). I'm surprised your first assumption would be that I had created a sockpuppet. For what purpose would I do that? Anyways, I removed the template because I had believe that my edits had adequately addressed the issue the template raised, though to be honest I didn't put much thought into it, as if you had objected to its removal you would have notified me on my talk page about it rather than jumping to conclusions and putting it up for AfD. -- Earl Andrew - talk 17:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment once again you're reading more into what I have written than there is, first you say I have accused the creator of these pages of removing the notability tag which, as you can clearly see, I didn't I accused nobody in particular especially as you both removed them... and I simply said that I hoped that you hadn't created a sockpuppet account but I not did say that I assumed you had. I believe my AfD nomination is not unjustified as there is very little that proves notability in the articles. There are almost no other years of these tournaments anywhere on Wikipidia with the exception of 5 other pages here Category:Scotties Tournament of Hearts provincial tournaments and none of them have any secondary in depth sources. This is purely routine reporting of an event, that I think if you were not a curler yourself, you would agree was not notable. Being a 1/4 Scottish I am genetically adapted to enjoy watching curling and I do. The fact that the broadcasters regularly comment on the events does not make every event notable as notability is not inherited and there has to be "Significant coverage" that addresses the topic directly and in detail. it also a shame that you didn't participate in the subject on the talk page [Talk:2017 New Brunswick Scotties Tournament of Hearts here] despite editing 6 times after it had been opened and removed the notability tag. The creator has also created...wait for it...334 red links in the 11 pages and almost all of them to players. That'a an awful lot of work to be getting on with and even if the WP:NCURLING states that all these players are presumed notable i hope the project members are up to the task...by the way i don't understand why bother putting in the criteria N° 3 as all players already meet criteria N°6. It seems very unfair that any other country except for Canada has to have had a podium finish in the National Championships but the Canadian players only have to have participated in one provincial qualifying match. A lot of other sports require that the player play at an international level to be considered notable. Domdeparis (talk) 19:02, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed your comments on the talk page, but if you had put something on my talk page, I would've been more likely to notice it. But I digress. And having more coverage of Canadian curling is not "unfair", as I've already stated twice, 90% of all curlers in the world are in Canada, so these provincial tournaments are going to often attract better quality curlers than most national championships. Moot point! And most of these curlers have played on the international level as part of the World Curling Tour. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't put anything on your talk page when I opened the discussion because you hadn't started editing on the page yet so I didn't know you existed and I have to be honest when I see a tag the first thing I do before removing it is check out the talk page as per WP:DETAG! I thought most editors did this and I thought that someone with administrator rights would have this reflex...my bad. Just to remind you the tag was removed 3 times (once by yourself) and the only sources are stats pages and no editors felt it necessary to check or participate on the talk page hence my AfD. Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Earl Andrew's analysis is good, in so far as the state of play for International Curling stands. I'd like to see more external sourcing (which, as noted, there should be plenty of) - but turn it around, what would be the result of merging these into one page, either the main tournament page or some single subpage? It's cleaner to have them separate, I think. And if they can be sourced properly, I don't see an issue with keeping these. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Reply as it is almost no other years exist and there are already the winners noted for the other years on the main page eg here Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts, nobody is denying that it is cleaner but I am saying that each event does not meet the WP:GNG but if sources prove that they do then the individual event should be kept but simple stats does not make an article notable. Domdeparis (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Almost no other years exist? Well, that's patently untrue as well. In fact, we've already had an AFD back in 2012, which was no consensus: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Yukon/NWT Scotties Tournament of Hearts, and it appears the only reason it was listed was due to the article having been created several months ahead of time. Anyways, I agree that "simple stats do not make an article notable", and I would be happy to add more sources to each article, but I do not want to waste my time if it proves to be futile, which is why I would like you to withdraw the nomination(s) if and when you are satisfied with my contributions to each article when the time arises. -- Earl Andrew - talk 21:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But isn't that part of the creation and editing process? Ensuring that the articles meet the GNG? As it is these pages and all of the others that I could find on the provincial playdowns are a simple collection of statistics with an identical lead and often 1 source or are unsourced. Sometimes there are several sources but almost all are not independent from the tournament, (the curling associations, the clubs, the web site that provides the stats are clearly not independent) Eg in the Ontario page [WP:2017 Ontario Scotties Tournament of Hearts here] there are 8 sources of which 7 are pages that list teams and stats and are all linked in some way or another to Curling in Ontario, the only independent source only mentions this event in passing and talk about the qualifiers for both the Tournament of Hearts and the Tankard. How about a redirect to the main page as I suggested eg Manitoba Scotties Tournament of Hearts and when you have found enough sources to prove notability just rollback the page and add the sources rather than leaving 11 non notable pages? Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'd like to point out that many of these pages also have been documented for several years, which at the request for deletion, one might as well get rid of those. It would need to be all or nothing with the exception of each tournament's main page. The reason coverage is so minimal is because many of the curling clubs that host these do not have adequate enough broadcasting capability unlike the national tournaments. For instance, This years Scotties is in St. Catherines at the home of the OHL Niagara Ice Dogs, who have legitimate need for broadcasting rights, whereas the host of the Ontario Provincial Scotties is just held at some curling club that many people probably have never heard of. This is much the same with the Brier where the Newfoundland Provincial Tankard is being held at the Bally Haly Curling Club in St. John's (known only because of an Olympic gold medalist who curls there in this case), but the Brier will be held in the much larger (not a curling club) Mile One Centre. And as a matter of fact, I am scoreboard watching right now on the link included on the page, which updates regularly as to what is happening in Draw 4 of the NL Scotties and Tankard, with scores also being tweeted out by the Bally Haly Twitter Handle.

71.186.189.20 (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment your remark that coverage is minimal because they do not have enough broadcasting capability is simply endorsing the fact they fail WP:GNG. We could say the same thing about any competition that has little or no coverage and this is the main argument for not including pages. In the GNG it says If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article and this is what i am suggesting as the main pages for these tournaments lists the winners of each year but in all honesty the pages are just stats and of no encyclopedic interest, all of this information is found on the source page curlingzone and the Wikipedia pages supplies nothing more and is even less detailed. Domdeparis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not a tournament is broadcasted is irrelevant to the discussion, as there are plenty of GNG sources for most of the tournaments regardless if an event is televised or not. Many of these tournaments are televised of course (nationally at that) and are not just played in curling clubs, but actual arenas. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:55, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As for me - Russian curling fan and "main chief about curling in Russian Wikipedia" ;) - my opinion is:
In any "curling" country any team, who want to play on Worlds, must do two steps: (1) to win National Championship (to give a berth - as "Team Russia" for example - to region Champ, for example European) and (2) to win any of "premium" places (1-7 for Euro, 1-2 for Pacific-Asia, 1 for Amerikas) on region Champ (to give a berth to Worlds from this region).
Any team - but not Canadian team. For Canada (like a most "curling power" country in the world for today) World Curling Federation made an exception to the general rule "for all other": "Team Jones" (for example) must (1) to win provincial Scotties (it's equivalent of "National" in Russia, Sweden or Japan) and (2) to win Canada Scotties (it's equivalent of European Curling Championships or 2017 Americas Challenge - "regional champ" between USA and Brazil for birth to 2017 Worlds) - and only after doing this two steps "Team Jones" can be "Team Canada" on the Worlds. So I think that 2014 Ontario Scotties Tournament of Hearts is equal "notable curling event" (and "thing in WP-law") like 2014 Russian Women's Curling Championship (not all curlers who plays on Russian Champ are "great world-known champions" - but they're "notable people" in "curling theme").
And I'm wondering why this articles about "Canadian provincials Scotties & Briers" (very good and useful information source about "hidden but important pre-history" of any Scotties and Brier about "why Jennifer Jones will not play on 2017 Canada Scotties? who defeated her in provincial semi? how it was in detail? what this winning skip did in curling carrier before this win? who else played in winning team? what teams (and players - maybe young and unknown for today but "great champions 10 years after") else played in this "provincial war"? etc. etc." - and all this information is "structural" and "cross-linked" in special for it making place called Wikipedia) are nominating for deletion.
Maybe to make equal exception for Canada in WP-"notable events law" for curling events like Canada provincial Scotties/Briers? I mean it'll be on right way - because "curling isn't any other sport - it's curling as is" ;)
Sorry for my "not the best" English (I hope you understand what I want to say ;) ). -- Alexey Gustow (talk) 19:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't see how these events can be so definitely stated as non-notable. A quick Google search of the Manitoba Scotties, for instance, shows sources related and unrelated to the tournament, including national and local media outlets. I'm not from Canada, and I ran my search in one area of sources from outside of Canada, so there must be more coverage that I'm not aware of. In addition, the Manitoba Scotties has additional support for notability because of Jennifer Jones's defeat and failure to win the tournament, which is a significant event in the world of curling and is reflected in the news about the Manitoba Scotties.

With regards to the provincial tournaments in general, I don't find the argument that these are simply run-of-the-mill events convincing. I must point out the significance of the Scotties (the Canadian women's championship) in the world of curling, especially because I'm not certain with the nominator's familiarity with curling. As the top curling nation in the world, Canada has a curling culture that is more competitive and developed than any other nation in the sport of curling. A majority of the world's top curling tournaments are held in Canada, and a majority of the top curlers reside in Canada. And, a significant number of those top Canadian curlers reside in Manitoba and play for Manitoba. In covering these athletes, who are certainly notable, it's important to cover these provincial-level tournaments as well. There are far more ordinary and routine curling events than these provincial tournaments, which represent higher levels of curling competition than many national tournaments in other countries. Moreover, their importance is also reflected in the notability guidelines that have been set by the Curling Wikiproject. And I'm glad to see that there is no argument against the organization of these events in this manner, since it'd be a nightmare to create and maintain a page with all of these tournaments covered in one article.

Based on these points and those made in posts above, I'd suggest that there is much more to say for the notability of these events than the non-notability, and move to keep all. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 22:47, 1 February 2017 (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.