Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vietnamese National Badminton Championships

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. postdlf (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vietnamese National Badminton Championships

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

This is not reputable. There source does not give the information listed and gives the reader barely any information. Intoronto1125 (talk) 04:31, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every of the articles nominated by the user Intoronto1125 today clearly meets the guidelines for notability in Wikipedia:Notability. If there are problems with the layout of the article or with the references, there are other tools to mark an article. All the contributions of user Intoronto1125 in badminton related articles are in my opinion closed to vandalism or vandalism at all (see move log of Channarong Ratanaseangsuang). If this user has problems with the sport badminton, he should not use wikipedia to show his. --Florentyna (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The user Intoronto1125 states, that in all these badminton articles are problems with references. But if there are missing sources or there are problems with sources, one should use another template like for instance {BLP sources}. A missing or wrong source is no reason for a deletion request. And at the end it is not right what he is saying about the missing references - every of the articles has a reference section where one can download all the results of the championships line by line. In the link Badminton Europe - Details of affilated national organisations on every page one will find a pdf-document with everything is needed (except for Vietnam). --Florentyna (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like I already mentioned, a wrong, missing or disappeared reference is no reason for a deletion request (if the article meets the notability guidelines). There are other templates like refimprove to indicate an article for missing or wrong references. Nevertheless before using this, one can also try himself to update the references. Here it was very easy to update the reference using [1]. --Florentyna (talk) 07:39, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- Danger (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It (the deletion template) is the wrong template - national championships are in general notable. See for instance: A national championship season at the top collegiate level is generally notable in Wikipedia:Notability (sports). And this championship is much higher than a collegiate one. The article is "only" incomplete, but it is the only information one can get from the web. User Intoronto1125 only found a dead link, what is no reason at all for a AfD debate. --Florentyna (talk) 17:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added one ref. I also found a Google book snippet here that seems to say this is a professional sport for Vietnam. Badminton at the Summer Olympics shows that Vietnam competed in the Olympics in 2008. There is also a national committee "Viet Nam Badminton Federation". Certainly there is content missing and room for improvement–this should be a challenge to improve the article. Unscintillating (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:51, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has a ref and is notable. But better/extra source is welcome. Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2011 (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.