Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying
- 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. (non-admin closure) Dusti*poke* 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying[edit]
- 2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This is a multiple article listing for the five articles that have been created for the qualifying tournaments for the opening five competitions of the 2011 ATP World Tour and 2011 WTA Tour. In previous years, qualifying articles have only been created for the Grand Slams, that is, the four major tournaments on the men's and women's tennis tours. I argue that qualifying tournaments for ATP tournaments are NOT notable. Whilst these tournaments appear to pass the general notability guidelines, media references to qualifying tournaments are almost exclusively as part of regular sports reporting. As such, most qualifying tournaments will fail notability under the criteria of Wikipedia is not news, as routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Furthermore, as events, these qualifying tournaments do not generally have significant historical impact in and of themselves: rather, they are interesting only as moments in player biographies, or as a small part of the story of the tournament, which is itself notable. Qualifiers are already mentioned in tournament articles and whilst, potentially, a particularly eventful qualifying tournament could be notable, I do not feel that they are habitually notable.
- Pretty Green (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following related pages, also created on 2011 tour qualifying tournaments:
- 2011 Brisbane International – Women's Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2011 Brisbane International – Men's Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2011 Aircel Chennai Open – Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- 2011 Qatar ExxonMobil Open – Singles Qualifying (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- --Pretty Green (talk) 15:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete All The qualifying tournaments are hardly stand-alone notable. A simple external link and mention of who actual qualified on the main page of the tournament is easily sufficient. Ravendrop (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The qualifying draws for ATP World Tour and WTA Tour tournaments are very important. This nomination is totally ridiculous. PL Alvarez (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the context of an encyclopaedia, they're not. They're tournaments which fail Wikipedia's notability guidelines as they garner no more than routine coverage, usually of the progress of any one player from a given country, rather than of the tournament as a whole. Thhe only significant outcome - the qualifiers - is adequately covered in tournament articles as is. Pretty Green (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect the articles to the appropriate singles pages (if wanted) or delete. I think qualifying draws are not important enough for a separate article, but could be included in the singles pages. Armbrust Talk Contribs 21:23, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Qualifying rounds are part of the tournament itself. They don't get less coverage than the first rounds of the main tournament actually. Plus, I don't see any reason that justifies the fact that Grand Slams can have qualifying articles when the other tournaments can't, their qualifying draws are just as notable as every other ATP/WTA tournaments. Qualis in general are very interesting as they provide lots of information about lesser known players or junior players. Of course we could just put a link to the draws on the WTA/ATP websites but they are usually taken down after a year and then become very difficult to find. So yes, Olivia Sanchez beating Liana Ungur in the first quali round of Auckland might not be the most exciting thing ever but I don't see how it could harm wikipedia either. (Sorry for my english, I tried my best but it's not my mother tongue.) PS: As for including tournament to the main tournament page, it's not a bad idea but it could make the page harder to read. Djezonfly (talk) 22:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep mostly as of Djezonfly. I think if we keep them you can follow a specific player throughout a career a bit more and see where he made "noise" for the first time and that stuff. I see no reason why they are less notable than the qualifying articles of the Grand Slams. Kante4 (talk) 21:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete all. I was planning my own group nomination together with 2007 Nordea Nordic Light Open – Singles Qualifying and 2010 Polsat Warsaw Open – Singles Qualifying. The qualifying may get some small news stories in the host and player countries before the main tournament begins but after that, the qualifying is basically forgotten. Qualifying never has top players and I disagree it gets as much coverage as the first rounds of the main tournament. And qualifying rounds are usually not considered part of the tournament itself. For example, all the official sites http://www.asbclassic.co.nz/, http://www.brisbaneinternational.com.au/, http://www.aircelchennaiopen.org/2011/, http://www.qatartennis.org/tournaments/index/21 show the main draw start (January 2 or 3) as start of the tournament. So does the ATP and WTA calendars, and almost everybody else. It's sufficient to list the qualifiers at 2011 ASB Classic#Other Entrants and mark them with Q at 2011 ASB Classic – Singles#Draw. I don't think any of the Grand Slam qualifiers have been discussed at AfD but everything surrounding Grand Slams gets far more attention. PrimeHunter (talk) 22:16, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course qualifying rounds are part of the tournament. What else could they be ? Another tournament ? No, every ATP/WTA tournaments has its qualifying rounds and qualifiers. Djezonfly (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The qualifying is often referred to as "the qualifying tournament" while "the tournament" or a specific name like "the ASB Classic" often only refers to the main draw. That's why the front page of all the nominated tournaments give a start date which is the start of the main draw without saying it's the start of the main draw. http://www.asbclassic.co.nz/news/day-one-schedule.html says "Day One of the ASB Classic" (without mentioning the main draw or the qualifying) about day one of the main draw. And http://www.qatartennis.org/news/more/2/162 says "day one" and "The first day of Qatar ExxonMobil [O]pen" without specifying the main draw. Sources generally don't say somebody played in a tournament if they failed to advance from the qualifying. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In the draws the starting date for the Qualifying and the Main Draw is the same e.g. here and here. So it is one tournament. Kante4 (talk) 12:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I got your point the first time you explained it. All I'm saying is that you'll never see a qualifying tournament without a main tournament, and the reverse is true. As a result, they're part of the same event. Djezonfly (talk) 14:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The qualifying is often referred to as "the qualifying tournament" while "the tournament" or a specific name like "the ASB Classic" often only refers to the main draw. That's why the front page of all the nominated tournaments give a start date which is the start of the main draw without saying it's the start of the main draw. http://www.asbclassic.co.nz/news/day-one-schedule.html says "Day One of the ASB Classic" (without mentioning the main draw or the qualifying) about day one of the main draw. And http://www.qatartennis.org/news/more/2/162 says "day one" and "The first day of Qatar ExxonMobil [O]pen" without specifying the main draw. Sources generally don't say somebody played in a tournament if they failed to advance from the qualifying. PrimeHunter (talk) 05:01, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep all. Equivalent to Challenger tournaments (whose WP:Notability has not been challenged, nor should it) in terms of level of participants and their significance to those partcipants Mayumashu (talk) 01:13, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:36, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep all. How can you say qualifiers for ATP events are non-notable? Most qualifiers for the tournaments mentioned are ranked 60th to 125th in the world, and Challenger events only have players ranked 250-1000. Qualifiers in ATP events give points towards overall rankings, and are thus definitively notable. This is like claiming the World Cup qualifiers aren't part of the World Cup. SellyminimeTalk 13:53, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - External media outside of the tournaments do seem to cover the qualifying draws albeit a portion. ASB Classic ASB Classic ASB Classic Chennai Open Chennai Open Chennai Open. Afro (Talk) 00:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Qualification rounds are definitely important. It tracks a player's route from start when entering a tournament. If a qualifier wins a tournament I think it will be quite interesting and encyclopedic to find info about those matches too. (Gabinho>:) 22:54, 9 January 2011 (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.