Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Izida Cup

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 redirect to List of ITF Women's Circuit events. The consensus now seems clear for a redirect. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Izida Cup[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Fact is, the article is about a tennis competition which fails the article guidelines of the tennis project. It states: "from 2008 onwards the ITF Women's $50,000–$100,000+ tournaments are considered notable. From 1978–2007 the threshold for notability in the women's ITF circuit is a $25,000 event." The "Izida Cup" is not applicable, as it only became a $25,000 event after 2007 (in fact, the tournament only started in 2009 as a $10,000 competition). As a note, any player winning a 25K event on the ITF Women's Circuit would also not be notable. Jared Preston (talk) 06:55, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, probably to ITF Women's Circuit#List of events. [changed from Keep or Redirect]. I removed the PROD; i am not connected to the article and don't recall how I came to notice the PROD. But I don't like the brightline rule asserted to by a WikiProject's guideline (which is merely an Essay, not a Wikipedia policy or Wikipedia guideline) in the deletion nom, that X dollars is okay for a 2007 event but not for a 2008 or 2009 event. That rule is okay for guiding a Wikiproject's article creation process, but WikiProject guidelines don't control notability; wp:GNG policy does. Here, NO ASSERTION of wp:BEFORE has been made, i.e. no search has been done for GNG sources? And, why not respond to this request for discussion at the article talk page? Okay, well, this AFD is open now, that is the response i guess. But, at a minimum even if GNG not met by sources when searched for, redirecting to some List of ITF Women's Circuit events would be better than eliminating this article. The redirect would preserve the edit history and allow for recreation of article if/when GNG is clearly met. We have obligation to editors to preserve credit for work done. Unnecessary deletions destroy credit, drive away editors, undermine success of the project. :( Keep or redirect: good; deletion bad. Especially when no research done. --do ncr am 01:54, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: I created List of ITF Women's Circuit events, List of ATP Challenger Tour events, and List of ITF Men's Circuit events, and updated the Tennis wikiproject's notability guideline essay to link to those. Lists provide useful complement to corresponding categories and navigation templates, per wp:CLT. --do ncr am 11:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also, note that del nominator's comment: "As a note, any player winning a 25K event on the ITF Women's Circuit would also not be notable" is not true. They may not be assumed by the wikiproject to be automatically notable, but I am sure that most top women tennis players are winners of ITF Women's Circuit tour events, and are quite notable! Likewise, the wikiproject guideline essay establishes that the wikiproject deems some but not all events to be automatically notable, but cannot be taken to mean that others cannot be notable. --do ncr am 12:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think I may have been understood. Of course the likes of Maria Sharapova, Serena Williams et al are notable even if they didn't win such a tournament. In fact, they have won higher-ranked tournaments! Obviously I am talking about automatic notability, and since there is barely any prose in the article of the tournament in question (as admittedly there isn't about many tennis tournaments, but there you go...), there isn't much savable about it. Even if the article was deleted, it could be restored if the event was to be notable in the future. Anyway, there is nothing generally notable about the Izida Cup. It is one of the second lowest-ranked tournaments on the women's professional circuit. Our (WikiProject Tennis) guidelines are by no means policy, but as far as it comes to inner-project guidelines on the creation of articles, they are very clear. Nothing here retrospective, even when the article was created in 2011 – the event wasn't notable. Many of the creator's articles on tournaments were deleted for this reason, but that too is beside the point. Redirect it if you like, I'm also not really bothered, but as our colleague Fyunck(click) (talk · contribs) quite rightly once pointed out, if some new user were to see this article, he/she may think that other $25,000 ITF tournaments are notable too, and create a shed-load of similar ones, but they are not. My final say on the matter, in case that was a question aimed in my direction, why I didn't source the article to try to keep it, is why should I? It's not notable whatever source I find to cite a claim in the article. It's just a line of information about what's in the infobox with a list of former winners, who, of course, aren't all even notable themselves. So, if someone wants it (the article) kept, then they should show it really does meet the trump-all WP:GNG. Jared Preston (talk) 20:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Okay i think this is ready to be closed as Redirect. I think no one wants to develop the Izida Cup article, and I accept Jared Preston's view it's probably one of the least important events. I think Izida Cup can be represented just by its entry (with a reference) in ITF Women's Circuit#List of events, and Izida Cup can be redirected to there. Meeting GNG is not required to be a list-item. Any other mini-stubs on ITF Women's Circuit events could be merged and redirected the same way, without being PRODed or AFDed, saving the original edit history in case someone chooses to develop more with GNG-type sources. --do ncr am 19:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would disagree with a redirect. I could be wrong but I think most (if not all) these tiny non-notable tournaments get deleted, not redirected. Maybe someone can check on that. They also get fully listed at places like 2013 ITF Women's Circuit (January–March) and don't really need separate lists. The created List of ITF Men's Circuit events is simply a redirect. And there are reasons why limitations were put on the ladies $25,000 tournaments that are too detailed to get into here. You are correct about GNG always superseding any guideline/essay. The trouble is that using GNG would probably also disallow almost all ladies ITF events...even if they're $100,000 tournaments. We have gone over and above to lower the standards of inclusion to $35,000 and above, so that 99.9% of the time there is simply no question of it being notable. Exceptions always happen... that's the wikipedia way and why we have GNG policy to take care of those exceptions. This tournament is not one of the extremely rare exceptions. Unless the ITF changes this tournament's status it will never become notable. And the $35,000/$50,000 limit will probably be increased in the futures since it coincides directly with the value of the men's events. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:50, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, about the women's ITF events it doesn't seem right to have multiple articles for some date-tournament-specific tournaments, say 2013 Blossom Cup, e.g. 2013 Blossom Cup – Singles and 2013 Blossom Cup – Doubles, and to have all of the events listed in list-type articles like 2001 ITF Women's Circuit, 2002 ITF Women's Circuit, etc. Why not keep those year-specific list articles but why not also have tournament-specific list articles? It is the same material organized differently. If the year info is notable, then the same info can be organized by tournament. And, the tournament articles can naturally collect appropriate references. If a given tournament is truly not notable, or just occurred one or two years, then it can be redirected to a list of the tournaments. The list of tournaments has links to separate tournament articles and the short info for a given non-notable tournament can be included there.

Likewise, for men's ITF events, it seems crazy that all the tournaments like "Great Britain F1 Futures" and "Israel F1 Futures" are itemized within date-specific list-articles 2010 ITF Men's Circuit (January–March), but there is no place one can see which years the "Israel F2 Futures" event occurred. It seems natural to list the men's tournaments and briefly give that info, e.g. *Israel F1 Futures" - 2010 with reference to Israel F1 Futures 2010 event at ITF tournament info, -2011 info etc. You're correct to note that i hadn't yet built out the list of men's ITF events, but now it is started at List of ITF Men's Circuit events (which is a section within ITF Men's Circuit.

This approach to listing the tournaments actually serves better than the scattershot approach of having some tournament articles and not others. Now there can be a place to cover each tournament, either in a separate article or as an item in a list.

Frankly the slavish treatment within Wikipedia of excessive detail in all the tennis events, usually just copied / sourced from ITF official pages -- as in 2010 ITF Men's Circuit (January–March), etc. -- seems non-encyclopedic. I think it would be better to strike out all the drawsheet type info from the Wikipedia articles, as it is available online anyhow, e.g. this drawsheet info in the ITF page for one tournament. That's the real problem, not the existence of short encyclopedic articles on specific tournaments. Again, i am for redirecting this Izida Cup item to the appropriate list of tournaments section. --do ncr am 16:40, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 19:29, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last vote above states preference for deletion rather than redirect on basis that "but I think most (if not all) these tiny non-notable tournaments get deleted, not redirected. Maybe someone can check on that". Well, previously there was not a proper redirect target. Now there is, the List of ITF Women's Circuit events. So, redirect now makes sense. --do ncr am 23:50, 14 October 2014 (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.