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 redirect‎ to 1997 UK Championship. Consider this a very 'soft' redirect, in that if/when sources are found that demonstrate notability per GNG, editors are encouraged to revert the redirect and re-establish the article to a standard that meets our general notability criteria. Daniel (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Dziewialtowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

There are over 100 newspaper database matches for Dziewialtowski, but apart from a couple of paragraphs in the Aberdeen Evening Express for 26 November 1997, I couldn't find anything that amounts to more than brief, routine coverage of results. Looks to me like he fails to meet WP:GNG. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: People, Sportspeople, Cue sports, and Scotland. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - going by newspaper coverage alone, you might have a point...but if we take Dziewialtowski as failing WP:GNG, I feel we will need to apply this to about half of all snooker player articles we have on Wikipedia. I'm happy to contribute to that process if that is the route we choose to take, but I believe it would be counter-productive to our aim of increasing the coverage of snooker here. I take the view that he meets the criteria for notability established here - [1] - having been ranked 68 at one point during a career lasting twelve years, and having been a quarter-finalist in a major tournament, the 1997 UK Championship. It's regrettable that there was only a passing mention of that achievement, but in my view, this should not detract from the fact that such an achievement - coupled with his albeit moderate career success - is sufficient for him to be notable here. Montgomery15 (talk) 20:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Montgomery15: I sympathise with your view but I don't think it accords with policy. Wikipedia:Notability (sports), which links to the page you mention, states that "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it." Near the top of the page that you link to, it says "Please note that the wikiproject advice below... should not be relied upon in the article deletion process, which is subject to Wikipedia policies and guidelines, not wikiproject recommendations." If you know of any other coverage in reliable sources about Dziewialtowski, such as in books or other media, please share the details. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:36, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _signed, Rosguill ^talk 06:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - My recollection was he got quite a bit of newspaper coverage at the time of the 1997 UK Championship and its aftermath. I suspect that this was largely as it was very unusual for a player at his ranking to get so far in a major tournament and there was a thought that he could be the next big Scottish player. While I would probably lean towards saying he is notable enough to have an article, I can see the case against as well. I would suggest if deletion is agreed to then a Redirect to 1997 UK Championship would be a good option as I do think people might search for him and this is undoubtedly the event that he is best known for (and why he would be searched for). Dunarc (talk) 22:55, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm loathe to vote because I'm unable to do a before search on my own for someone who would have been in the papers during the early internet age, but if BennyOnTheLoose's before is correct, then this should be deleted or redirected. SportingFlyer T·C 09:22, 10 June 2023 (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.