Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Upper Austria Ladies Linz – Doubles

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mandraketennis (talk) 17:41, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Upper Austria Ladies Linz – Doubles[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)

This page is lacking its main and essential link to the double draw on which it's all based and the only verifiable external link provided. Since the link is unverifiable, it doesn't even open an external page when clicked, and it's the main link upon which this page is based, as stated in the Wikipedia Verifiability page "content without any reliable source to verify it may be removed", and since after checking i didn't find myself any other source of the draw, this page should be removed, as in fact stated in the Wikipedia policies mentioned above. Mandraketennis (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Keep - this editor has added this tag to several tennis articles out of spite and has been reported. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Notable article. This seems simply disruptive behavior from the proposer after not getting their way in a recent discussion.--Wolbo (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:NOTCLEANUP this is a notable article and should not be deleted. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:51, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Proposer needs to read WP:BEFORE. Sod25 (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@sod25 I, in fact, did read the whole page "article for deletion" and related pages before submitting this and the other 3 articles. At point 2 it's enlisted the reasons to put an article up for deletion, and i quote, "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)."

So, while ALL the USERS above have read only the first mentioned point Notability, i have read all the 4 points, and found that 2 of them, verifiability and reliable sources, are not met in this article. The general consensus made-up above is apparently built on a false premise, that article deletion should be waged ONLY against notability, while the WP:BEFORE page clearly states that it is one of four. I hope every future comment will adhere to what is written in the guidelines of Wikipedia and not to some sort of agreement among editors, if not to general laziness to stop at the first mentioned reason mentioned for deleting articles. I really hope that is not the case, because i cannot imagine what the "internal" consensum could have reduced the other main guidelines, instead of applying what is clearly stated in there. I would also like to point out that user @spiderone made a suspicious number of cross-posting, 4 in a minute, which could be considered canvassing, and the two user above @wolbo and @fyunck could be considered as vote-stacking, since they already undid some of my editings and were against a recent proposal of mine, fyunck in particular was duly present in that previous discussion raising constantly arguments against it and mischaracterizing the proposal, so for sure they were not "a priori" in favor of anything coming from me.Mandraketennis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - The doubles draw is properly sourced with a reputable and reliable source (WP:RS): the WTA and their pdf of the main draw. And the article as a whole is verifiable (WP:V). M9155 (talk) 10:30, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M9155 the link is not working, i am going to drop the good faith assumption since it seems nobody of the above editors was actually trying to open the link, they just post and repost the same wtatennis.com link which doesn't open but a blank page in a new window (on a new tab tries and close it istantly).Mandraketennis (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Link to wtatennis website is now working, still no pdf, but to me it's a detail. I am going to retreat this article. Mission accomplished. Mandraketennis (talk) 17:39, 14 November 2021 (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.