Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Records held by Roger Federer

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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, though I would recommend that this article's supporters add references, and prune the non-records from the list. i.e.: "In 2004, Federer became the first player since Ivan Lendl in 1986 and 1987 to win back-to-back Tennis Masters Cup titles without losing a match". This is not a record, but a piece of trivia. Resolute 02:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Records held by Roger Federer[edit]

Records held by Roger Federer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Federer is encyclopedic, a list of his awards might be (though I tend to say no), but this piece of unreferenced fancruft is a bit much. See WP:IINFO for details. Biruitorul (talk) 05:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Smerge only what may be sourced back into Roger Federer, such as e.g. value of purses received. Comparisons of numbers of purses won back-to-back and other such manufactured records are violations of synthesis unless they have secondary sources. --Dhartung | Talk 06:54, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fancruft? All of it is referenced. Whether one likes Roger Federer or not is irrelevant to whether the material should be on wikipedia or not. The information is valuable and helpful. If a reporter wants to keep track of tennis records that are likely to be broken in the near future, it helps to have a lis like this. Keep. Benkenobi18 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • "All" of it is referenced? Sorry, of some 66 "records" listed, I only see citations for 3. I never said whether or not I like Federer, so that's a straw man. "Valuable", "helpful", "if a reporter..." -- do see WP:NOT. Plus, any evidence that any of these (other than those three) are actually considered records by anyone other than the authors? See WP:V and WP:NOR for why we need that as well. Biruitorul (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 12:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep AfD is not cleanup. Nom admits a list of Federer's records and awards may be encyclopedic in it's own rite. Main article for Roger Federer is 88Kb, so there really isn't room to merge anything. If only reason for deletion is that it's not currently cited properly, slap a ref tag on it or fix the issue. This isn't a valid reason for deletion, because the bulk of it appears readily sourceable. Horrorshowj (talk) 07:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, not quite. I admit the List of the awards won by Roger Federer may be encyclopedic "in it's own rite" [sic], but I stand firm by my contention that the article we are now discussing, the list of Records held by Roger Federer, is not. The fact that something "appears" readily sourceable is fairly irrelevant: the question is why such a list should belong in an encyclopedia. And so far no one has provided ample reason, though the fact that but 3 of some 66 "records" are cited is yet another black mark against this effort. Biruitorul (talk) 22:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've found this article much more handy in terms of reference material then the biographical article. I would be willing to hunt down sources confirming all of these records on wikipedia if requested. A simply consultation of the article provides a wealth of information. Most of them are evident upon careful examination of the atp players profile. Benkenobi18 (talk) 23:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure the entries aren't made up out of thin air. But if each one were cited (and we're a long way from that), we're still left with two conundra: a) who considers these to be "records"? b) why, ultimately, should Wikipedia be concerned with that? I believe, and I am supported by WP:NOT in this, that the list veers too far into the trivial to be of encyclopedic merit. Biruitorul (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete an attempt at an extra article by putting together by OR every possible permutation of circumstances that could be conceivable called a record. the word fancruft, much as I dislike it, does apply to this sort of article. So does the the much overused word indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 08:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal is ridiculous. This is a separate topic on its own from Roger's awards. And I reckon this deletion proposal is just spam by someone who doesn't like him for some reason. His record is so impressive that it deserves its own article. This guy is a living legend and there will probably not be another like him in any sport. I mean this is like over 50 records. And on a personal note, it is actually somewhat fun to read all these records, you just go "wow." And I'm sure many agree with that. ~ GoldenGoose100 (talk) 20:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please Assume Good Faith -- I never expressed a personal opinion on Federer; I don't even have one, for the record. Please make your case based on Wikipedia policies -- the fact that "you just go 'wow'" when reading the list is not a reason for retention. Do you have any evidence, for instance, that any third-party sources consider these to be "records", or that any of them (except the three cited ones) are verifiable? Biruitorul (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2007 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Records_held_by_Roger_Federer&oldid=1071043018"