Talk:888sport.com Six-red World Championship

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• 2009 Six-red World Championship
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:2009 Six-red World Championship

This article was nominated for deletion on 4 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was procedural close.

Proposed move

Six-red World Championship –> 888sport.com Six-red World Championship

Discussion at Talk:Sangsom Six-red World Championship. Betty Logan (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with 2009 Six-red World Championship

Since the tournament was only held once in 2009, the proposal is to merge this article into the 2009 Six-red World Championship. If there is no opposition to the merge I will redirect this article to 2009 Six-red World Championship one week from now. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would have thought the merge would be better the other way round, i.e. merge the 2009 tournament details into here, since the tournament itself is inherently more notable than an individual edition of it (even if there is only ever one edition). _wjemather ^bigissue 09:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support There was only one edition, no need for an umbrella article. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 10:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, there should be an umbrella article with no need for an individual edition article. Which is more notable – the event or an edition of it? _wjemather ^bigissue 10:08, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well because there was only one edition, thus the edition is more notable. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 10:18, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, per comments on your talk page and given your insistence on reverting to a now ambiguous title for the 2009 edition, merging into here would avoid any such problems. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alternatively I don't see anything which should be merged to the other article. Why don't just move the other article there? Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 10:32, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Move what other article where? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wjemather (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 March 2011
2009 Six-red World Championship to 888sport.com Six-red World Championship. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 10:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Because that is not how merges are done, because by deleting the page to make way for a move you lose the contribution history. And please do not start (or stop) merging content either way until we have concluded this discussion. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:42, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you understand? There is nothing to merge. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 10:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on... but you have just been merging content – and we don't want to lose the contribution histories. Can we just get back to the issue at hand. I think we are agreed on a merge, the only question is which way. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No I just re-added content, see: [1] and added a reference. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 11:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: Merge into 888sport.com Six-red World Championship
Option 2: Merge into 2009 Six-red World Championship‎
My preference is for option 1, since it is in my view the more notable topic, and it also avoids any ambiguity and confusion with the current six-red world championship. _wjemather ^bigissue 10:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Option 2 – The sponsor's name is only generally retained when the tournament doesn't have a name i.e. LG Cup, so using the year would be in line with the current snooker article titling procedures. It doesn't need to be disambiguated from the 2009 Sangsom event because the Sangsom event wasn't a world championship prior to 2010. We should probably clarify in the prose on the Sangsom article that there was another unrelated event known as the Six red world championship prior to the 2010 name change. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Option 2' WP:CUESPELL also says: "Use the clearest and least excessive official name when there are more than one, generally preferring that of the sanctioning organization (the supplier of the rules) over those of local organizers and especially of commercial sponsors, all other things being equal." Clearly the case here. Armbrust ^{WrestleMania XXVII} _{Undertaker 19–0} 18:10, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but project essays hold little water when held against policy, i.e. Wikipedia:Article titles. Because of the other tournament, and regardless of whether that was called a world championship in that year, 2009 Six-red World Championship fails policy on more than one count – Recognizability and Precision. As it stands that article also fails on Consistency. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:39, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merged

No agreement was reached as to which title the articles should be merged under. However there is literally no information in this article which isn't already present in 2009 Six-red World Championship. The merge can be completed simply by turning this article into a redirect, so that is what I have done. There was an agreement to merge so that has been completed now in a manner that was the easiest to perform. Any further issues in regards to the article title should be discussed at 2009 Six-red World Championship in relation to whether the article should be renamed or not. There is no point holding up the merge because of dispute over the name of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 09:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]