Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park – Doubles

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 delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park – Doubles

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

Also nominating the following related page because [it is interconnected as a sub page of the 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park tennis event]:

One of probably hundreds of articles on the non notable doubles event from barely notable challenger tour tennis tournaments. These are small tennis tournaments (total prize money for the tournament $50,000, of which only a smaller part goes to the doubles). According to Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Notability, every challenger tournament is notable: but that is an essay, and doesn't make it clear that the separate sections of the tournament are notable as well. Looking at 2014 ATP Challenger Tour makes it clear that usually, there are two to six of these tournaments every single week, which now all get three articles (a main one, and separate ones for singles and doubles).

In general, the coverage for these double events is minimal, the players are mostly barely known. The winner will be announced in one or two newspapers, and that's it. Most Google hits are automated listings from betting sites.

In this particular event, the winners had a career highest doubles ranking of 339 (Kern) and 220 (Ouanna), so even in the world of doubles tennis these are barely notable small fish (Ouanna had a fairly good career as a singles player though). Everything that needs to be said about this doubles tournament is already in 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park, a separate article for this non notable sub-event is overkill. Fram (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are this. Tennis Project has determined through many years that doubles events will be treated as we do singles events. There's rarely any exceptions. And we have always looked at the minor league tournaments on the ATP Challenger tour as notable. Barely, but notable. That being said, there is no reason whatsoever to break down the singles and doubles events into separate articles. Everything should be on the 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park page since it's so small as is. This should be done to almost all minor league Challenger tournament articles. Three articles for each of these events is two articles too many. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:58, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notability should be determined by the sources, not by a WikiProject. Doubles gets much less attention than singles does in the reliable sources, no matter what way we turn it, so treating both types of competition at par is wrong as it is at direct odds with the sources.T v x1 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That has never totally been the case. With so many items we would be here a month of Sundays arguing on the edge about notability. In fact they were 10-15 years ago until project guidelines were set up. We take the items of a subject that are "usually" notable and simply say this group is notable. that is what happened with the professional ATP Challenger Tour events. There are more tournaments than on the ATP Tour, but less than what is on the professional ITF tournaments. What was never discussed was whether we should be making singles and doubles draws of these tournaments, and that answer should be no. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that this individual competition meats the GNG. All coverage that can be found is WP:Routine. Anything that needs to be told can be told on the main page of the tournament.T v x1 22:38, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I would say all coverage should be found on the seasonal article for the tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:23, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Fyunck(click). There is no need (or basis) for the article split. Base article is not too large. --Bejnar (talk) 16:11, 10 June 2017 (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.