Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season

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. I see a clear consensus to Keep this article. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Carlos Alcaraz tennis season[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)

Article violates WP:NOTSTATS. Everything significant in the tables can and should be summarised, in prose, at Carlos Alcaraz. There is nothing especially notable about this season. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople, Tennis, and Spain. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Number 1 players generally are eligible for these sorts of articles, I'm not sure why this would be an exception. SportingFlyer T·C 21:07, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero reason to have a separate article fork. We don't have season articles for individuals in any other sports besides tennis and cricket, and given the active consensus for eliminating the latter it's clear these tenniscruft articles are unencyclopedic too. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's a huge difference betwen tennis and cricket. Cricket is a team sport and most people follow teams rather than individuals; tennis is an individual sport and fans follow their favourite players across the tour. Iffy★Chat -- 11:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have season articles for sportspeople in other individual sports either, even though every single high-profile athlete even in some team sports receives just as much or more coverage during a given season. JoelleJay (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Season articles for individual teams (eg. in Association Football) still remain. I do not think it is the most appropriate to make a comparison on that basis between team sports and individual sports, when one individual cannot necessarily influence the entire outcome of a team performance on a consistent basis. There is also a reasonable argument to be made that singles tennis is the most prominent individual sport in the world in terms of outreach and popularity. 115.66.66.93 (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The only issue with the article as it stands is that the Yearly summary section has no text in it. This is an issue that can be solved by improving the article, not deleting it. Iffy★Chat -- 11:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this seems to be precisely as envisioned by WP:NOTSTATS: Where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article. I'm not really seeing a rationale for deletion here, let alone a policy-based one. -- Visviva (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – both as a standard split off and an encyclopaedic topic that is quite easily notable. Should, however, include prose commentary on the season, but that is not a rationale for deletion. J947 † ^edits 11:19, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@J947, what about the rationale that IRS SIGCOV of the season as a whole has not been identified to demonstrate the topic actually passes GNG? JoelleJay (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay: I'm not sure why coverage of the season as a whole would be necessary? It's a splitoff article from Carlos Alcaraz that can go into more detail than the main page. It's just for convenience; it is helpful but not necessary that the season is consistently discussed in itself. What matters is that across the season there is enough coverage to sustain an article. And of course there is. J947 † ^edits 22:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Splitting is permitted only if the new articles are themselves sufficiently notable to be included in the encyclopedia. The topic does need to receive GNG coverage as any other page would. JoelleJay (talk) 22:49, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about notability as a whole being required. If rs A has sigcov on John Doe's tennis career, rs B has sigcov on John Doe's scientific endeavours, and rs C has sigcov on his brief acting career, and the link between these roles of John Doe is only mentioned in passing, then John Doe is notable irregardless of whether he isn't covered as a whole. Because that is the job of an encyclopaedia – to connect evidence together and provide a broad overview of a topic. There's a wealth of information to cover on Alcaraz, far too great for one article, and splitting attempts should not be thwarted by a narrow interpretation of an information page. It makes sense that his famous seasons are discussed in separate articles, and perhaps for lesser seasons cover two seasons in one article, whether or not any RS has happened to discuss "Alcaraz' 2025–26 tennis seasons". It is also quite probable that there is sigcov on this season as a whole, but that's not the question. J947 † ^edits 23:06, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do not think it is fair to claim that there was nothing notable about this season, considering Alcaraz broke the record for the Youngest Player to ever be ranked No. 1 on the ATP rankings. He also won a grand slam. He also broke the records of the youngest player to win the Miami and Madrid Open, both of which are Masters 1000 events and are only second in prestige to the Grand Slams. Seasons like Novak Djokovic’s 2009 season and Rafael Nadal’s 2006 season also have articles but are not being considered for deletion, despite these players arguably achieving less in those respective years than Alcaraz in 2022. 115.66.66.93 (talk) 04:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is literally not a single source discussed here or in the article that covers his "season". Without such sources being identified there is no P&G-based rationale to keep this article. JoelleJay (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Alcaraz's 2022 season is notable for him becoming the youngest year-end World No. 1 in the Open Era of tennis - a record that had previously been held by Lleyton Hewitt for nearly 20 years. Throughout that season, Carlos accomplished a number of other feats - such as being the youngest-ever champion of a few prestigious tournaments - which is of interest to tennis fans and students of the sport alike. If anything, I'd rather condense the corresponding section of his main Wikipedia page than get rid of this one. Chernorizets (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chernorizets, the subject still needs to meet GNG as a standalone topic. Do you have any sources of SIGCOV in independent (so not from ATP or any sports org) secondary RS on this season as a whole? I'm also curious how you arrived here with only ~115 edits... JoelleJay (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@JoelleJay I'm a big tennis fan, and in particular a fan of Carlos and his meteoric ascent to the top of men's tennis, so I noticed the deletion proposal banner on the page not long after it had been placed there. I'm going to gloss over the passive-aggressive undertones of your last sentence because, as a good friend likes to say, you do you.
This whole discussion is trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. Only current, and in some cases former, world No. 1 tennis players have dedicated articles about their tennis seasons on Wikipedia. That's a tiny percentage of all the players in general, and of those for which there are articles in particular. It in no way "overburdens" the encyclopedia or detracts from its tone. Season-specific articles are of great significance for tennis fans, because they often depict historic rivalries, achievements in the sport, changing of the guard, etc. It is part of tennis culture, and some of the individual matches themselves have articles when they've reached sufficient notability.
Even if you wanted to make a broader argument that per-season tennis player articles should not exist, or that they should be brought to a higher standard, proposing the deletion of the current world no. 1 player's historic 2022 season seems like a strangely selective, piecemeal way of going about it. Start with the players that have multiple such articles - like Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal or Novak Djokovic - and observe the reactions of the community. Chernorizets (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
None of these arguments are policy- or guideline-based (and in fact are solidly WP:ATA). To have a standalone article on wikipedia, a subject must meet WP:N, and that requires SIGCOV in independent secondary RS. No one has put forward a single source meeting those criteria, let alone the multiple required. We are an encyclopedia, not a statistics directory or fandom. JoelleJay (talk) 22:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the article can be improved with sources, and the sources fortunately do exist. That, however, is a different conversation from "just delete it". I see no issue with adding the appropriate notices on the page that it needs to be brought up to a better standard, and in fact I've recommended as much on the Carlos Alcaraz talk page (as well as moving relevant content here). Chernorizets (talk) 22:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The kid won a Grandslam at 19, became world number 1 at 19 and finished year end number 1 at 19, in addition to numerous Masters 1000 wins. Definitely keep. Its the first top season of a historic tennis player

Exxcalibur808 (talk) 19:15, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Thin down the main page and move it to this article. He won the US Open in 2022. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 17 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.