Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guillermo Coria career statistics

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 no consensus. After 4 weeks we are not anywhere near achieving a consensus, and since repeated relistings have attracted no new participants at all, it is unlikely that we are going to achieve one. JBW (talk) 20:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Coria career statistics[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)

Unsourced statscruft. WikiProject Tennis's guidelines permit match-by-match season articles for only "players who have won at least one Grand Slam tournament singles title". Guillermo Coria doesn't meet that bar. Despite its title, this is not a standard career statistics article, e.g. Daniil Medvedev career statistics, which lists significant finals and has performance timelines, and has a lower bar for creation. Instead, this article contains match-by-match results for 3 out of Coria's 9 years, equivalent to e.g. 2007 Roger Federer tennis season, and thus should be held to the season article requirements. Player statistics articles are created "when a player's main article gets too large"; Coria's isn't currently, so a real career statistics article isn't needed for him anyway. —Somnifuguist (talk) 18:48, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The lowliest of tennis players get a career statistics article. Whether it's a brand new player like Coco Gauff who has won almost nothing, or even Amanda Anisimova career statistics, or Gisela Dulko career statistics. Coria was in a major final and won two Masters level events. He has enough career stats to warrant the article. The only problem is the content isn't handled the same way many other tennis career stats articles are. But there's a reason for that. Editors had created yearly articles for this player that really were not warranted as stand-alone articles. This was discussed at a deletion/merge request here. It was unanimous that the content should be kept and merged into a new career statistics article, which was already warranted for him. I created and moved the content. It needs sourcing and better order, but it should not be deleted. The content was already closed as keep and merge. We just need to do a better job on this poor article, but not delete it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change. An accurate title for the current content would be "2003–2005 Guillermo Coria tennis seasons", and Coria doesn't deserve such an article based on our guidelines (which you were involved in creating). If Coria is to have a "career statistics" article, it must not include the current content, as no other career stats article contains match-by-match results for entire seasons—they are put in season articles if the player meets the criterion (Coria doesn't). And Coria's article isn't over long, so the stats don't need to be split off into a "career statistics" article as it stands. The current content should be deleted, and the article recreated at a later date only if the stats on Coria's article become too unwieldy. —Somnifuguist (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:11, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course consensus can change, but right now we have longstanding consensus to keep and merge the material. Since the consensus was to keep the material, at worst we should maintain it in this article's archives to be brought back as needed. That would require that we turn this into a redirect to Coria's main article with the info maintained in its history. It should not be deleted. Coria's article deserves a career stats page more than many others, but no one has taken the time to do it well. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Guillermo Coria - the current content does not meet the guidelines but this can be improved by editing the article, rather than deletion. Redirecting preserves the history. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 07:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, Wikipedia Tennis Project has no guidelines for what is to be included in a career stats page. They do not need to all be the same, in fact we discourage cookie cutter articles. Certain charts in a career stats article must meet project guidelines, while others have no guidelines. That is on purpose. While a player, per guidelines, cannot have an article titled "2022 John Doe tennis season" unless they meet certain spelled out standards, info on that season can certainly be included in a career stats article within reason. We have no guidelines on exactly what should be included. There is longstanding consensus on certain things always being included like detailed performance charts, but no real limits except what can be agreed upon between editors. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:19, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So a player can have a career stats page that consists of their match-by-match results for one year only, and nothing else, and we don't hold it to the season article standards, just because of the title? That doesn't seem right to me. Think about where the current content would fit in Coria's article if it were to be merged back. It wouldn't go in the career stats section, as it doesn't cover his whole career. Instead, it would go in the yearly sections, like Roger Federer#2006: Career-best season. Match-by-match results for entire seasons are not career stats, they are season stats, and as such should be held to the season article standards. —Somnifuguist (talk) 09:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I simply said there is no rule or guideline that prohibits it. None. By convention it's not usually done and I would change things. If someone took this exact framework and instead of doing round by round losses they only said he won or lost that particular tournament, that would probably be fine for many editors for certain players. I'm not saying there shouldn't be changes made I was commenting on Tennis Project Guidelines for career stats articles. Considering the player's prowess on court, his main article and career stat article should be larger than Coco Guaff's articles. Because of that to simply delete this page doesn't sit well with me. It's content should be enhanced here rather than deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You would change things? By "not usually done", let's be clear here: not a single one of the 194 other articles in Category:Tennis career statistics contains match-by-match results for a player's entire season. Not one. In contrast, every article in Category:Tennis player seasons does. It is clear that this article's content despite the title falls into the latter category, and we should treat it as such. The spirit, if not the letter, of our guideline says that the content should be deleted. —Somnifuguist (talk) 20:06, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we obviously differ in opinion about the seriousness of this "guideline" infraction. This seems fixable to me as it obviously did to those who last asked for the info to be kept and merged. As for what they contain, they all differ to a degree. Djokovic's shows his match by match wins and losses at the Olympics. Most others who were in the Olympics don't that I saw. There is too much detail here in the format of year by year, but a lot of the info would still be here if the charts were standardized and he got more charts and graphs that other players have. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 10:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Bold third relist to try and achieve consensus. This needs further participation from other editors.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Daniel (talk) 23:07, 24 July 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.