Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Astana Challenger – Singles

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Astana Challenger – Singles[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Doesn't meet WP:SIGCOV and is likely contrary to WP:NOTMIRROR and WP:NOTSTATS Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events and Kazakhstan. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a notable tennis event under WP:NTENNIS. I at least added sourcing to the article. I also disagree with nom's claim that this article violates WP:NOTSTATS. I don't believe a tennis bracket with results only is any different than an Olympics page with 100m sprint times, and I don't believe either violates NOTSTATS. If this article was loaded with match times, ace numbers, winners and double faults, then maybe we'd have a problem. Nom had similar reasoning at an AfD just a couple of months ago on a similar article here. Articles of this sort have been nominated for deletion multiple times before: here, here, and here, and the consensus always seems to be that these articles are notable but the question is whether these articles should be merged under one parent article or left as is. I feel that is best decided in an RfC, not at AfD. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NTENNIS doesn't seem to cover (challenger) tournaments but specifically biographies of singles and doubles players. This guideline applies equally to singles and doubles players

Your examples on AFDs concerning the Bucharest and Gelsor tournaments are both AFDs on higher tennis tournaments such as the ATP International series or WTA International tournaments and therefore on higher lever tournaments than one of the challenger series which this one is about.

In your last example in which multiple challenger articles were nominated for deletion the majority voted for either merge or delete with you opposing mentioning there exist numerous sources for those tournaments. But at least to the articles I checked no-one made other than maintenance edits.

Then also in none of those AFDs someone (not even I) argued with WP:SIGCOV or WP:NOTMIRROR. In the AFDs I also found WP:SPORTSEVENT which says:

Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats.

For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, consider developing the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topic instead of creating a new standalone page.

This would be directed for at least the doubles and singles articles of the challenger tournaments for which already exist in most of the cases a main article. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 14:59, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge This is a valid split - NOTSTATS doesn't apply as a result - but the Astana Challenger article isn't very long, so this could be validly up-merged. I don't recommend it, but we shouldn't lose this information. SportingFlyer T·C 14:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It (info) must be maintained but it could be merged. The thing is all the other ATP Challengers have split the draws. You can't have this as the only one to be different. The event is certainly notable per project guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:04, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not entirely clear if the article should be kept or merged…
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 12:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per Fyunck(click). Kante4 (talk) 17:56, 30 July 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.