Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Tennis

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Shortcut
Deletion Sorting
Project

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Tennis. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion
Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:
  1. Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  2. You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Tennis|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.
Note that there are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
Removing a closed AfD discussion
Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
Other types of discussions
You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Tennis.
Further information
For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:
Purge page cache watch


Tennis[edit]

Valentin Royer[edit]

Valentin Royer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tennis player who fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NTENNIS. Can't find any sources that involve more than just a passing mention or his one successful tournament in Tunisia, which isn't enough to meet notability requirements. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:28, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve added French-language sources that mention him more than just in passing, as well as his finals/titles on the World Tennis Tour. He’s ranked in the top 200 and just passed the first round of qualifying at Roland Garros today. Mellamelina (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to note that a lot of the references that have been added are again still just passing mentions of Royer and run-of-the-mill mentions of his tournament results. They don't go into any actual depth. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you created the page for Francesco Forti, and I'm confused by why Francesco Forti is seemingly more notable than Royer? Forti's page only has one reference, and it's just his ATP profile, so it seems a bit ridiculous to me that you're dying on this hill. The first five sources on Royer's article alone go into depth about him. And yes, a lot of the other sources are his tournament results because they're included in a section summarizing his professional career, which is hardly where you'd look for a huge thinkpiece about him. Mellamelina (talk) 00:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, re: Bogdan Bobrov, a player with 7 ITF titles and a career-high ranking of 361. You created this article and only cited his ATP profile, so I'm really not understanding how you're taking issue with Royer, who has the same amount of titles and a career-high ranking of 200, well above Bobrov's 361. Mellamelina (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable for anything tennis related. But Mellameline has a good point @Adamtt9:. You created Bogdan Bobrov and that player looks per the page to be even less worthy. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mean to dogpile on @Adamtt9, but this AfD is absurd to me. Here are the non-notable tennis articles they've created this year alone. All of these are minimally sourced.
    So if we're really trying to cull tennis articles, why don't we start there, rather than the article of someone who just made a Challenger final and passed to the second round of qualifying at a Grand Slam? Mellamelina (talk) 10:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Minimally sourced doesn't equate non-notable. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:39, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So can you tell me what makes each of those players more notable than Royer? Since I don’t have any sources to refer to. Mellamelina (talk) 11:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Might I remind you that this all arose from you claiming that you couldn’t find any sources on Royer, and yet you don’t seem to have any firm ground to stand on in your own articles. To me, it seems like you did one simple English-language search on Royer and jumped to conclusions when you couldn’t find anything within the first 10 seconds of searching. Mellamelina (talk) 11:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Mate I did enough of a search to not find any sources that went into depth, only passing mentions. I went through some French sources, but as I don't speak French, it was slightly difficult to figure out if they were enough to determine notability. So I sent it to AFD. You went and improved the article, so if other people agree with you that these sources are good and WP:GNG is met, then the article will be kept and no harm is done. I'm not sure why you're being so aggressive. Adamtt9 (talk) 11:50, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m being “aggressive” because it’s laughable that you’re talking about the state of my sources given the state of the sources on your articles. Don’t you understand that you’re throwing stones from a glass house and it seems a bit hypocritical? Mellamelina (talk) 11:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I’ve done some research on the players I mentioned above that you deem notable enough for their own article, and I’m failing see how most of those, apart from one or two, could be considered more notable than Royer. None of them have even made the qualifying draw of a slam. The fact that you would put a “non-notable” AfD on this article and yet deem those players notable enough for their own articles is again, laughable. When this is over, you should definitely do a deep dive on your own work and consider whether, by your standards, they warrant an article due to notability and sources cited. Mellamelina (talk) 12:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just wondering, have you looked at our guidelines on notability? For tennis related notability a player can 100 ITF events and gain nothing. Those events are filled with children and college players and are the lowest rung of making money. The Challenger level (minor leagues), making a final doesn't cut it either. You have to win a Challenger level event to warrant tennis notability at Wikipedia. Now a person may garner notability in other ways by having magazine articles or newspaper columns specifically about them. Our articles must include these facts to show notability. If you are ranked high enough to make the main draw of the WTA or ATP main tours you also gain notability, so that it is extremely likely that you'd find a good source or two. Obviously there can be an obscure case or two, but the best thing is to look at our guidelines and if a player doesn't pass that minimal litmus test, they shouldn't have an article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So why exactly aren't these standards being applied evenly across articles? How does a player like Bogdan Bobrov with zero ATP main draw appearances and zero Challenger titles warrant his own article? Mellamelina (talk) 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad, he has a Challenger doubles title. Mellamelina (talk) 20:05, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And that's the difference... a minor league Challenger title whether its singles or doubles. When the guidelines gained consensus way back when, doubles and singles events were treated exactly the same. Doubles notability has fallen drastically every decade for 50 years to the point that maybe it should be re-looked at... perhaps needing a QF on the main tour to get the quick article creation. But until that happens it's the consensus we go by. There will always be borderline players and you always have to show that general notability. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree on this point. There are many players who technically meet the WP:NTENNIS requirements of playing in an ATP tour level match in doubles by receiving a wildcard. Even in Masters 1000 tournaments like Jacopo Bilardo and Giorgio Ricca in the Rome Masters just weeks ago. But they are still red links and an article shouldn't be created, because other than that one appearance where they lost comfortably, sourcing is not going to demonstrate an ounce of notability. So both WP:NTENNIS and WP:GNG should be looked at to determine whether a player meets guidelines or not. Adamtt9 (talk) 21:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, that’s fair. Mellamelina (talk) 21:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, only GNG should be used to determine notability, as NSPORT requires GNG to be met. Winning particular titles is completely irrelevant if you haven't cited SIGCOV sources in the article. Further, to qualify towards GNG, the coverage must be of the subject's career as an adult. JoelleJay (talk) 23:28, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But tennis guidelines help determine whether an editor should start creating a draft article knowing the likelihood of GNG will be met by outside sources in English or otherwise. And then consensus will determine whether GNG has been met. What do you mean by an adult? There are countless thousands of articles of people under the age of 18 who meet GNG. What does age have to do with notability? Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Per YOUNGATH, sources, especially local ones and anything interview-based, on a subject's junior achievements do not qualify as IRS SIGCOV. JoelleJay (talk) 23:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But that doesn't mean you get no GNG as a youth. We have be more careful. You don't use a high school paper that says their quarterback is special. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:34, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looking at the first 10 sources, I am not seeing enough IRS SIGCOV to meet GNG. Ping me with the three most significant pieces not listed here and I might reconsider.
    Source 1,7 (Ouest-France 1, 5): interview as a child w/ trivial indy coverage, fails YOUNGATH and SIGCOV/INDY Red XN. 2,4,6 (O-F 2, 3, 4): interview with some independent sentences, but still coverage of his juniors career and not enough to be SIGCOV Red XN. 3 Dicodusport: Blog piece in first-person Red XN. 5 Le Telegramme: Interview with very little independent content Red XN. 8 (O-F 6): almost zero independent content Red XN. 9 Tennis Actu: routine match report Red XN. 10 Tennis Plaza: routine match report. JoelleJay (talk) 23:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian Open broadcasters[edit]

List of Australian Open broadcasters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NOTTVGUIDE applies here. Just another case of WP:LISTCRUFT to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here? The subjects are not described as a group, failing WP:LISTN. Additionally WP:NOTDATABASE and WP:ROUTINE. As of sources per WP:RS: three of those are about announcment of deals, one is a listing of TV schedules, one just quotes the tourney in passing which has no relevance to this list. Checked WP:BEFORE which resulted in nothing. I would have no objections to a keep if the article was in the same quality of List of Wimbledon broadcasters.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Television, Tennis, Lists, and Australia. SpacedFarmer (talk) 11:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of French Open broadcasters (2nd nomination) and WP:NOTTVGUIDE. LibStar (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - except this one has better sourcing than the deleted French Open article. It needs to be tidied, but just because it's not up to a good article like Wimbledon broadcasters doesn't mean we delete it. Wimbledon broadcasters shows these articles can be kept and in the discussion on the deleteion of the French article it was mentioned that Wimbledon and Australia are much better. What's next... the US Open Broadcasters article.? Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I do not feel strongly about this page, but I do find the reasons for deletion to be garbage. This is not a TV guide, neither was the French Open page or any other of the tennis tournament broadcasters pages. This statement about the page "to appeal to nobody but the small minority of the most ardent fans; another excessively bloated list that is fit for Fandom but is it encyclopaedic for here?" I find to be the most nonsense. This page is not bloated at all. Since when is something listed in an encyclopedia only because it is popular? The whole point about an encyclopedia (particularly an online one that is not limited in size by printing costs) is that it should contain obscure information (I am not sure a listing of which networks broadcast a major tennis event is that obscure anyway). I would never request any page on wikipedia be deleted, as this goes against what I believe wikipedia should be about. If editors feel pages are not sourced well that is a different issue. If I feel that is the case when I look at a page, I look to find sources (in this page's case many sources may be broadcasts of finals which list the commentators). The only problematic issue with this page (and other Grand Slam TV broadcasters history pages) is that TV broadcast contracts are merging into online streaming contracts (with various limitations to customers based on location) and keeping up with all the different streaming contracts may be problematic going forward. But the pages still have a value when looking back on the era when events were broadcast on TV (for the time being Wimbledon is still broadcast on conventional TV by the BBC, though maybe not for much longer). This change to streaming could easily be overcome by a simple statement "in recent years the event has been available on a variety of streaming services". The No TV guide wikipedia policy that the deletion proposer posted a link to says the following: "An article on a broadcaster should not list upcoming events, current promotions, current schedules, format clocks, etc., although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant program lists and schedules may be acceptable." That clearly shows a primary reason for deletion of this article and others like it is bogus.Tennishistory1877 (talk) 18:37, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Doczilla Ohhhhhh, no! 04:06, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Tennis&oldid=1224997137"