Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of tennis

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. (non-admin closure) DMySon (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of tennis[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)

Redundant to Tennis, which provides a much more comprehensive overview of the sport. Also largely abandoned, with fewer than 50 edits in 10 years (vs. 1500+ for Tennis). Letcord (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Letcord (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep— I agree that the Outline page nominated here needs to be dragged into good shape, no question. However, Outline pages are wholly different beasts from standard article pages. Even if Tennis does a more comprehensive job than Outline of tennis, the aim of the two pages is different. Personally, I've seldom used Outline pages, but when I have they've been helpful, more so for complex topics that are difficult to wrangle with search results alone. Tennis is not one of those complex topics, though. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 16:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The article has had 13 years to get into shape, and it is a terrible representative of WikiProject Tennis, completely outdated and amateurish. This isn't a standard article where notability comes into play, so just because it could be useful doesn't mean we should keep it in such a shambolic state. Letcord (talk) 21:07, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sports and Lists. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - big topic with many articles that could use a central index/outline like this. It's not in competition with the main tennis article; it's a list of subtopics for ease of navigation/learning. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Does what WP:OUTLINEs are supposed to do, which necessitates some overlap with the main article. The rest of the deletion rationale, the need for maintenance/updating, is characterized at WP:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions under the name WP:NEGLECT. I agree that there are problems to be fixed, but deletion would prevent editors from improving it in the future. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this were a normal article where notability came into play, WP:NEGLECT would be a bad argument to make. But it's been 13 years and nobody from WikiProject Tennis has spent time working on this overview, unlike Tennis, so realistically no one will. It therefore fails the "realistic potential for expansion" standard in WP:NEGLECT. The statement "Does what WP:OUTLINEs are supposed to do" is also incorrect as it gives a very poor, outdated outline of tennis. The {{Tennis box}} navbox on the Tennis article does a much better job at providing the basic links. Letcord (talk) 21:29, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nothing gained by deleting it, and some people still use it. In the past 90 days 1,044 page views recorded. If you deleted articles because they weren't complete and perfect, that'd wipe out most of Wikipedia. This is a perfectly valid outline page. Dream Focus 21:57, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Useful per WP:OUTLINE for someone who may not know very much about tennis or the professional tours. Could be tagged with {{Cleanup}} or {{Update}} as an alternative to deletion. Bonoahx (talk) 10:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Editing history does not decide whether the article should be kept or not. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 16:52, 11 April 2022 (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.