Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Australian Open – Men's 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 draftify‎. Can be expeditiously moved back at the point in the next few weeks that the tournament reaches a stage that this article can be fleshed out. Daniel (talk) 17:00, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024 Australian Open – Men's 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)

Organize this under WP:TOOSOON. At present, the article is developed with a bunch of empty sections. There are two sources, but they're information about the 2023 Australian Open. 2024 Australian Open is currently a redirect. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:25, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Events, Tennis, and Australia. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify for the next 1 and a half months, by which time we can expect this tournament to take place and therefore be able to fill up and reference the sections (unless something crazy happens between now and then). Iffy★Chat -- 18:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify does seem like the best course of action. The framework is fine and just needs to be modified and/or filled in as events unfold. If it's deleted, then somebody else will eventually have to come back and redo all this preliminary work. Yimingbao (talk) 15:41, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The 2023 version is little more than a month away. Does anybody seriously think the 2024 Open will go away? What a waste of time. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the comment immediately above. Don't see the point in draftifying this for a short time. ~~Duplication could occur. Better to treat as work in progress and keep.~~ Bound to be notable and have an article. Rupples (talk) 05:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC) Amended my view following enlightenment from the nominator, below. Rupples (talk) 00:57, 15 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The empty sections, as you call it, are indeed standardized tables, so that nobody uses its own bricolage. Contributions will come soon. Stemmerter (talk) 18:49, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: There's only two references and one of them relates to the winner of last year. This is WP:TOOSOON TarnishedPath^talk 03:16, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sources. In part talks about the 2024 Open.[1]. Kyrgios non-participation.[2] Brief guide[3]. Aussie wildcards.[4] 2024 changes [5] Rupples (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2023 (UTC) WP:TOOSOON is an essay not a policy, and challenges notability on events through lack of sources. The above sources aren't that in-depth but show the event is already being talked about. Rupples (talk) 04:35, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there's enough to start writing about the 2024 Australian Open right now, but that's not this article. Iffy★Chat -- 09:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we are talking about one of the four biggest events of tennis... and it starts in four weeks. No reason to draftify if in two weeks the coverage will start to get massive. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment All of the Keep votes are like "trust me dude it will be big in like a couple of weeks". Anyone remember a pandemic that happened out of nowhere a few years ago that sort of stuffed everything like this up from happening? TarnishedPath^talk 12:41, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I do remember and if that happened we take it from there. It's more likely perhaps that if moved to draft another editor will recreate the article not noticing it's in draft space so we have two articles and potential duplication in main space. Rupples (talk) 14:08, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERTHINGS is not an argument for keep. TarnishedPath^talk 00:10, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is when we have a borderline article that in two weeks will be an overwhelming keeper. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Again, we're back at "trust me dude it will be big in like a couple of weeks". TarnishedPath^talk 04:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing WP:OTHERTHINGS. My argument is based on the strong probability the tournament will go ahead in 1 month's time and sources are sufficient now to support notability. The only argument for the article's draftyfing is TOOSOON and I'm arguing it's not too soon. The information in the article is verifiable. It's explained the seedings are based on projected rankings, we know Djokovic won in 2023. The lead of the TOOSOON essay refers to the policy WP:CRYSTALBALL which states All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred and further Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Does anyone know how many times since the tournament began in 1905 it's been cancelled/postponed/delayed within a few weeks of its scheduled start date? My assumption is very few. COVID-19 merely delayed the 2021 tournament by 3 weeks. Rupples (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As I said to someone else, I agree there's plenty of content we could add to 2024 Australian Open right now, but right now nobody's turned that redirect in to an article. This article however, is only needed once the draw is announced as we can't fit all of the tournament's draws in to a single article. Iffy★Chat -- 12:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Rupples: If someone tries to create an article that already exists in the draft space, they get a notice indicating that a draft already exists with a link to that draft (see Mailena or Castle of Baratuli, for example). If someone tries to create an article that already exists as a draft, they should be able to go contribute to that draft and potentially move it into the main space. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 22:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Thank you for this. My initial objection to draftifying was based on a practical consideration to prevent duplication. I'll move to a neutral position. Reason: if I'd known this I'd have been less likely to go for keep in the first place and consequently not backed that initial call with other arguments. Rupples (talk) 22:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: Subject does not meet the WP:GNG as this is currently written. WP:TOOSOON and WP:NORUSH should be heeded. User:Let'srun 15:28, 13 December 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.