Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 WTA Finals

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 Nomination withdrawn.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) 23:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 WTA Finals[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)

unverifiable source for the draw. No draw link offered at all, against WP:VERIFY rule Mandraketennis (talk) 15:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 November 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:32, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT #1 and #3, Not only is 'lack of sources for part of an article' not a basis for deleting the entire article, but it doesn't even apply to this article, which summarises the entire event and has many high quality sources in the article already. Iffy★Chat -- 16:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep It has enough resources to back up the draws. I provided links to the singles and doubles draws. This article should be NOT considered for deletion. Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - one of the biggest events in the WTA calendar. Gets loads of coverage Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 17:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Qwerty284651: You provide no link whatsoever about the draw. The only link resembling it, it's this https://www.wtatennis.com/news/2346777/wta-finals-2021-schedule-draws-prize-money-and-everything-you-need-to-know, linked in the notes to the article, which as anyone can easily check (did you??) instead of delivering about its title "... the draw..." it enlists the two groups of players. That is, it's a failing link after a simple verification. Mandraketennis (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Spiderone: Being a big event (i doubt it's bigger than any other Grand Slam ever played) and getting a load of coverage doesn't assure that: 1) It's covered adeguately and 2)It doesn't need any reliable source, because "everybody knows" or some lingo like that. Wikipedia relies on trusting and reliable sources. Not providing the and writing the article nonetheless, well, it's a straight way to the deletion, as per policies and guidelines offered on Verifiability page of Wikipedia.Mandraketennis (talk) 20:08, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandraketennis What is wrong with you? This is a very reliable tennis article with adequate sources and one of the biggest tennis events. You can't just go on promote for deletion as you please, because you blindly believe it does not fit the policies and guidelines, when it clearly does. You are just plain wrong. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is a prominent article which is not so prominent. It's the single page, not the main page article. Deleting it would not compromise the event, the WTA finals, coverage on Wikipedia. But leaving this and the double with link NOT WORKING would be a big detriment to the reliability of Wikipedia. Mandraketennis (talk) 22:58, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy: Having a lot of coverage doesn't imply some part of the article could go without any, because it's somewhat or mostly covered. I must have to point out that even if it has a good number of references in the note, it has only one link to the official website in the external link section, that makes up for, at its best, a low quality article. Having said that, I can concur with you that maybe this was not the "right" article to put up for deletion, maybe for some other tag, and that its subarticles should be up instead. Thanks for the advice.Mandraketennis (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note - this person has added this label to several prominant tennis article out of anger and he has been reported. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:12, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try again, it's 4 articles, not several, 2 on WTA Finals and 2 on Upper Austria tournaments. Now, Upper Austria, a WTA 250 event, is a prominent tournament since when? I'm stating facts and arguments and you have been going full on with personal attacks. This has been a displeasing conversation since start. On one thing i agree: your misbehaviour, your ability to make everything personal and threat with ban newcomers, not to argue about the issue and dismiss other editors contributions, reverting them and so on, has been noticed and reported. Regards.Mandraketennis (talk) 22:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Try again. Every person commenting thinks every single article you put up for deletion is craziness. This should never have happened. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Sails through WP:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Tournament as one of the most notable women's sporting events of the year. The claim of the draw being "unverifiable" is contradicted by the first link on google [1] (which yes should be added to the article). Proposer should read and abide by WP:BEFORE. Sod25 (talk) 01:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: it's literally under progress. – 333 -blue at 02:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: I've just added a direct link to the article for the Singles Draw from the official WTA site (I would do so for the Doubles Draw as well, but do not know how to do so, as it's located at the same page, but is accessed by subsequently clicking upon 'Doubles' once there], so the argument that there isn't any 'official' link to said Draw is now moot. More importantly, though, the idea that this article should be removed is utterly absurd; it is at the very least recognized by most who seriously follow the sport as being the fifth most important tournament of the year, only behind the four Majors... and is recognized by some as possessing equal importance to those four Grand Slam events. Anyone who attempts to proclaim that this event is not worthy of having its own article here upon this site is oblivious to the strong degree of importance that this tournament holds within the women's tennis world. – AtypicalMale — Preceding undated comment added 05:10, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This is just a totally farcical deletion request. MaineCrab (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: Totally ridiculous.Alexxbrookss (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Well, if I there is "no valid link to the Draw", then you should try to find and add that link, not demand the whole page to be deleted.LuxGSM (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn The links for both the draws were added, so i retreat my deletion request.Mandraketennis (talk) 23:46, 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.