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, with stropng reservations. No doubt the article is very interesting, but a significant part of it unfortunately must be deleted as original research. `'mikka (t) 16:58, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comes off as OR, only one editor has worked on the page, and with pages on the commentators, this is not needed. Renosecond 03:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This isn't an essay, it's an article. Though it has some OR to it, I think it just needs cleanup as opposed to a nuking. There are obviously commentators on the game of snooker, why not have an article about the topic? --Daniel Olsen 03:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are not any other sports with their own commentary pages. This info could easily be transplanted to the respective announcers, who all have their own articles. Renosecond 03:28, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are there sources upon which such an article can be based? Please point to some. The article does not, and the (sole) author on Talk:Snooker commentary says that this article was constructed "according to memory and discussions with people I have met" (i.e. is the author's and the author's acquaintainces' own novel synthesis and anlysis of snooker commentary) and "is not something that can be easily looked up" (i.e. is difficult, if not outright impossible, for editors and readers to verify). In other words: By the author's own admission this is unverifiable and original research. Uncle G 08:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Not encyclopedic but not an essay.--Ageo020 04:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Good informative article. Lancsalot 10:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not counter the charges that it is unverifiable and original research. Citing sources is the way to counter those. Please cite sources. Uncle G 12:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Difficult to find sources for this subject matter. However I can personally vouch for its authenticity. Lancsalot 12:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • No offense, but your personally vouching for the authenticity is meaningless (as my personally vouching for it would be as well). Without sources, this doesn't belong on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 15:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Personally, I feel this vote should be deleted or discounted severely as it just states opinion about the article, not if it should be kept. Renosecond 23:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Probably should also AfD Commentator's curse, created by the same author as an extension of this article. --Dennette 10:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is unverified and appears to constitute original research.--Isotope23 13:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Needs to be Wikified and clearly tagged as OR Tx17777 13:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Hi, author here. Snooker commentary is a world unto its own, and it does have these patterns to it that could not be easily incorporated into any other articles. I have been open in my admission about the citation problem, readily incorporating the ^{[citation needed]} function wherever I feel my own version on things in unacceptable for this encyclopedia. I would love to be able to cite everything but I can't, surely you can see how this is difficult to do. I would like to hear the opinions of a few snooker fans who can vouch for most of this information, since this is the only way to cite it to my knowledge. I would suggest the article be kept, but with some infoboxes warning about OR etc., leaving it open for others to suggest citations. I have recognized this as the main problem with it. If this thread [1] goes any way towards convincing any of you that this information is true, if only tenuously verifiable, then great. It's the best thing I could find on the web, but I appreciate it's still not great as a reference source. I'm not going to argue any further, if you feel the need to delete it it would be a shame from my perspective, but I do understand that it doesn't meet certain criteria, and will probably never make it onto the Main Page as a featured article! Kris 14:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You know, having an article like this is what a personal webpages is for. WP is not the place for such things, and your vote should be discarded. Renosecond 23:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I thought Wiki policy was no OR, not 'some is ok' and/or 'tag it as such'? Marcus22 14:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, right... OR infoboxes are a temporary notice while sources are found. Anything that cannot be sourced should be removed, not left in an article indefinitely with OR or citation tags. In this case, removing the original research would leave the article blank. Just tagging this as OR is not a solution.--Isotope23 15:46, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is an unsourced, opinionated personal essay on a subject whose notability is slim anyway. wikipediatrix 18:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article may contain OR but it should be tagged and references should be dug up, I don't think it would be too difficult considering the number of linked-to bios. Anything that can't be referenced should be axed though, article definately needs some trimming Canadian-Bacon ^{t c e} 19:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - almost completely OR, author admits that references are unlikely to be found. No objection to it being recreated with references, but the current article clearly isn't going to improve. Yomangani^talk 01:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a great article, it gives a real insight into snooker commentary, and people who are voting for deletion obviously just don't follow the game of snooker. Everything in it is true. Yes, it lacks citations, and yes, it is in need of input from more NPOV Wikipedians, but this can be worked on over time, I don't think it would be wise to just delete the whole thing. I understand why people voting for deletion are doing so, but as a snooker fan I would urge you not to. You make me laugh Renosecond, putting this article up for deletion. Not the first article deletion debate we've been in is it? I like what you said about Lancsalot's vote: "Personally, I feel that this vote should be deleted ……… as it just states opinion…" And you have some gall telling the author himself he has no right to an opinion regarding keeping the article. There's no wonder you've been banned from Wikipedia in the past, I enjoyed the little tantrum you threw about it as well. It seemed you didn't quit after all – we wouldn't be one to get a bit hot-headed when someone doesn't agree with us would we? Then say things in the heat of the moment? Anyway, all I can say is if this article gets deleted it'd be a real shame. Pre1twa 13:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that User:Pre1twa is a brand-new user account, and this is his very first contribution. wikipediatrix 13:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment actually, I quite like Snooker, but unsourced, uncited articles based on admitted original research just don't have any place on Wikipedia, no matter how interesting they may be.--Isotope23 15:21, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as with Isotope23, I am voting delete. (And not only do I like snooker but I do, sometimes, both follow and play it). Nevertheless this article is contrary to original research. Marcus22 16:50, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep pre1twa has been a long time viewer of wikipedia and has only had the need to sign up and create an account in response to a 'certain person's' 'delete happy' views on a subject that is of great interest to him. Pre1twa 14:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Much as I appreciate your staunch support Pre1twa, I think the best thing you can bring to this "forum" is silence, cheers mate. I'm enjoying this debate and agree with most of you, be it for or against the article. You're all intelligent people, but I don't agree with the encouragement of disallowing opinions, that would perhaps belie the very reason this page exists. So please stop suggesting such things Renosecond. The ultimate root of everything we as a race perceive as knowledge is opinion, we just trust others more than others. I will stand by my above Keep stance, but likewise won't complain if a delete was arrived at, because in the cold light of Wikipedia rules, all deletists are probably correct. I said I wouldn't argue my case any more — and I'm not, I just don't want an inherent bias to stem from disregarding all the people who vote for the article. Kris 03:46, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment please only state Keep or Delete once per discussion... and please read WP:CIVIL Pre1twa.--Isotope23 15:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not "delete happy", but I do feel that WP needs a level of quality and consistency. This article was something I stumbled upon and I did not feel that it met the criteria for an article here. Just because an article may be interesting does not mean it should be included. And I hope that some of the keep votes be heavily discounted, as they are not valid reasons to keep an article and some are made in poor faith. Renosecond 19:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, cleanup the bad parts, I'm sure there is enough verifiable information for a short article. bbx 06:29, 2 September 2006 (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.