Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snooker world ranking points 2005/2006

:{{la|Snooker world ranking points 2005/2006}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Snooker world ranking points 2005/2006}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Snooker world ranking points 2005/2006}})

:{{la|Snooker world ranking points 2006/2007}}

:({{Find sources|Snooker world ranking points 2006/2007}})

:{{la|Snooker world ranking points 2007/2008}}

:({{Find sources|Snooker world ranking points 2007/2008}})

Original research and synthesis. There is no source which contains, how many points the players received in this season and the points were determined from [http://www.worldsnooker.com/files/points_schedule_20052006.pdf this] [http://www.worldsnooker.com/files/WSAPointsSchedule0607.pdf three] [http://www.worldsnooker.com/files/points_schedule_20072008.pdf sources] and the players performance in the ranking events. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:40, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

:If you miss some link, just add them, don't start a deletion process. These pages are obviously not research or synthesis, the info is available on multiple sources. But, if you like destroying useful pages, please go ahead. I don't care anymore. Betelgeuse11 (talk) 15:59, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• Keep (for now) — This is pretty important information, since ranking points go to the core of the sport. We can source the later seasons, so it's just these three seasons that are a problem. Obviously the lack of sources is an issue but given the importance of the rankings I think we should at least make a concerted effort to locate sources first before just dumping the information. I wasn't even aware that these three articles were not properly sourced, so I think a better course of action would be an "improve the references" template to start with, and take it from there. Betty Logan (talk) 16:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
• Keep. It's a notable topic, but it needs better sourcing than at present. I not convinced that building the list from multiple sources really classifies as synthesis - at least tag it and give it some time to see if it can be better sourced. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

• I've added sources to Snooker world ranking points 2005/2006 and Snooker world ranking points 2007/2008 and they are now fully sourced: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2005%2F2006&action=historysubmit&diff=399963210&oldid=399933998 2005/06] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2007%2F2008&action=historysubmit&diff=399964447&oldid=399934259 2007/08]. I've also added sources to Snooker world ranking points 2006/2007 so that the total points and all tournaments except the world championship are sourced: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Snooker_world_ranking_points_2006%2F2007&action=historysubmit&diff=399966892&oldid=399933918 2006/07]. We still need a source for the 2007 world championship points (although these can actually be verified to be correct because they follow mathematcially from subtracting the other tournament points from the totals, all of which are sourced). In view of this I don't believe a case exists for deletion now. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2010 (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.