Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Luxembourg Open (badminton)

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 no consensus. Sandstein 12:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Luxembourg Open (badminton)

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Draftified and then twice declined at AfC. Creator does not seem to be familiar with sourcing requirements, and a BEFORE identifies no sourcing to establish notability for this inaugural event. Star Mississippi 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Badminton and Luxembourg. Star Mississippi 13:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notable, part of BWF International Series and BWF World Ranking system. Similar like in tennis the parts of the ATP Challenger Tour. Regarding the sources - I have seen already much worse pages, the sources here are not too bad. --Florentyna (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is not sourced like Apple however the general notability is met in general--Bigneeerman (talk) 17:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC) sock strike. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:14, 16 October 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:03, 28 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existing sources look better than the previous ones where the creator only included primary sources to the article. Stvbastian (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Florentyna (talk) 14:21, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've already voted. Please strike one of them as double voting is not allowed. Star Mississippi 17:48, 1 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The "keep" opinions appear questionable... More input by experienced editors needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:49, 5 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Existing sources fail WP:GNG, and I found no others. In response to the comment above that there are "much worse pages": WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ––FormalDude (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:31, 12 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have found more non-English news articles 1 and 2 and 3 and 4 JMWt (talk) 19:50, 12 October 2022 (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.