Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medvedev–Tsitsipas rivalry

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. It's of course agreed that rivalries are not presumed notable, but to the extent there is debate about significant coverage and reliable sourcing, there is a rough consensus that, for this particular rivalry, enough coverage exists for retaining the article. In particular, there isn't much of a direct rebuttal to the sourcing that explicitly discusses the rivalry. I feel a redirect to the List of tennis rivalries would constitute a !supervote given the weight of the arguments here, as viewed through the lens of policy. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 03:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Medvedev–Tsitsipas rivalry[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)

Per tennis project and Wikipedia guidelines, this is not a legitimate article-worthy rivalry. If it's a rivalry : According to WP:NRIVALRY, rivalries are not inherently notable. "We can only have articles about tennis rivalries if there is significant media coverage about the rivalry. For example, great rivalries like Agassi–Sampras or Federer–Nadal warrant an article, but articles about rivalries like Agassi–Rafter and Federer–Hewitt have been deleted by the community. Tennis is a sport where closely ranked players wind up playing a lot... it's inherent. This is not a rivalry that the press talks endlessly about like Federer vs Nadal or Laver vs Rosewall. If in doubt, consult Wikiproject Tennis before creating a new rivalry article." Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sportspeople and Tennis. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There does seem to be significant coverage from multiple reliable sources about this rivalry which are already in the article. Specifically these sources - [1], [2], [3], [4] - all describe this as a rivalry and discuss it in some depth (i.e., go beyond listing stats/match results). There is also [5] which I can't access because of a paywall but looks promising. WJ94 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi, creator of the article here. I wrote to the nominator earlier today on the talk page, explaining with sources how the article meets GNG, and I had hoped to continue any discussion there, though I could've been clearer about that. [I won't suggest a merge myself – I think the article stands alone well – but considering that option is to me much preferable to nominating for deletion (!).] Anyway, want to mention I'm not under the illusion that Medvedev–Tsitsipas is at all as "great" (nominator's word) as Federer–Nadal, but that's a really high bar. And there is of course a lot of routine coverage of Med–Stef matches, but (as WJ94 noted) there's also more than that. Here are a couple more sources not currently cited that show the importance/uniqueness of Med–Tsitsipas: [6] ("closest thing we have to a blood feud"), [7], [8] (Med: "Every match against Stefanos is kind of special"). Hameltion (talk, contribs) 21:47, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And as I pointed out, rivalries/head-to-heads are inherent in the sport. That doesn't mean we create a rivalry page for every two players. We try to create rivalry articles for truly great massive press reported rivalries. Evert-Navratilova for one. Graf-Seles is another. Otherwise a section on the players articles in question is most always the best option. Most created rivalry articles get deleted once the general wikipedia populous looks closely at the situation. Most head-to-head confrontations don't even warrant a mention on an individual player's article... a few head-to-heads (like Hewett-Federer) get a paragraph on the player's article showing it is more significant than their other head-to-heads... and a very few turn out to be rivalries that highlight the sport in question and deserve a stand-alone rivalry article. You can always bring an Rfc to the Tennis Project and WP:NRIVALRY to change the Tennis Project guidelines on rivalries. Maybe this one is a really unique professional tennis head-to-head, but I'm not convinced. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fyunck(click) - No one is suggesting that this rivalry has inherited its notability; the argument is that the rivalry has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We don't need an RfC on this because what is being discussed is the general notability guideline, and no Wikiproject can overturn a a generally accepted guideline like GNG (WP:CONLEVEL). In any case, the guidance you link to refers back to WP:NRIVALRY which just refers back to the WP:GNG - and the point being made here is that this rivalry does meet the GNG. You say that we only create articles for truly great massive press reported rivalries, but how do we deice which rivalries are truly great? The only way Wikipedia has to decide this is through an evaluation of reliable sources (i.e., the GNG). Sufficient reliable sources which give significant coverage to this rivalry have been provided. If you still think the article should be deleted, please explain why you believe the sources provided in the article and by Hameltion do not constitute significant coverage. WJ94 (talk) 10:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a big difference between talking about a rivalry between a couple players where it is notable enough to add to an individual's article. We may know Serena Williams show size and have it sourced multiple times but we don't add it to her article. Likewise we may see some sources that mention a rivalry but again that doesn't mean it always gets added to an individual article... we may have undue weight to deal with. If we do find enough then adding to the individual article where it is more likely to be kept updated is the best place to put that notable info. It is a huge step to say it's notable compared with jumping on an individual stand-alone article. What has been created is better served on these individual player bios... probably with a collapsible head-to-head. This is not worthy of an individual article at this time. The small amount of sourced data at best should be merged and at worst removed imho. We'll see what other think in the next few weeks of interest. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect it to the List of tennis rivalries article. And when the necessary conditions are met for said rivalry to be in the table, remove the redirect and you should be good to go. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:02, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree with the redirect but almost none of the rivalries listed on List of tennis rivalries have their own article. Just a very few. Even if this makes the list it would not warrant a stand-alone page, so we wouldn't remove the redirect. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not all, but some do have, those which are most noteworthy aka meet WP:GNG at the very least with rivalry articles of their own. Qwerty284651 (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources listed by WJ94 and article content. Meets WP:GNG. // Timothy :: talk 21:34, 15 January 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.