Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2004 Estoril Open

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 keep. Consensus is that this annual competition is notable enough for its own article. However, since the content of the articles is currently limited mostly to scores and results, it may be appropriate to have a merge discussion on the article's talk page (to merge the men's singles and men's doubles articles to the main article). -Scottywong| prattle _ 23:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2004 Estoril Open

edit
2004 Estoril Open (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, Notwithstanding the WikiProject article recommendations, this sports event fails the WP:NOT policy as it is for an event without any demonstrated "enduring notability". Not sourced and only sources I can find are of the routine type every professorial sports event gets.

Also nominating

2004 Estoril Open – Men's Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and,
2004 Estoril Open – Men's Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

for the same reasons that there are no sources demonstrating enduring notability. Mtking (edits) 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. There's millions of pages about ATP World Tour events, including every Estoril Open edition since its inception, what makes this one so different than 2004 Milan Indoor, 2004 Adidas International, or any other 2004 ATP event? If there's something wrong with this, at least be consistent and propose them for deletion too. Hell, what makes 2004 so different than 2003 or 2005? Secretaria (talk) 20:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. Mtking (edits) 22:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 23:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Every sporting event on the scale of an ATP or WTA World Tour gets sufficient media coverage (even if it may be a bit tricky to find afterwards), gets dozens of notable players to participate, and has a lasting notability which is resulted in the statistics of those players (for instance, it is noted in the article that this was a tournament Gagliardi won her first title - although in doubles). This is the rationale behind creating and keeping these articles. We may want to change this policy and practices (though I personally do not see any reason why), but this clearly goes beyond the AfD consideration.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Routine coverage of the event in sporting press is not the issue, the issue is WP:NOT says that WP only covers events of enduring notability, WP:PERSISTENCE goes onto outline "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" and the only coverage I can find is at the time of the event. Mtking (edits) 09:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly sure what you mean by coverage. For instance, this independent source, published last month, mentions that the 2004 winner was Chela. This is not comprehensive coverage, I agree, but, first, I was too lazy to find smth more comprehensive, which very well may exist, second, finding comprehensive coverage of 1904 Olympics - undoubtedly a notable event - may be also pretty tricky 9though obviously easier), third, I am sure in the end of 2004 there have been end-of-the-year reports, and for instance I am sure Jon Wertheim in his column must have mentioned that Chela had xxx tour titles in 2004, including Estoril Open, where he won over yyy. Just finding this requires going through his 2004 columns.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It should have coverage (as per WP:PERSISTENCE) that contains "further analysis or discussion" rather than just reporting the results. Mtking (edits) 22:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT This same nominator and a few other like-minded editors have been systematically going through lists of events in another sport (simply check Mtking user contrib for last 1000 entries) to plug everything which might not match "enduring notability" into AfDs. This has caused many months of excruciating turmoil which caused many regular contributors to leave, some more to be blocked indefinitely for resisting wholesale AfD's, and it is currently still unresolved. It's probably best for wiki if the broader sports community and interested admins helped clarify the rules at hand, to prevent the whole category from plunging into the same fate. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 08:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If the nominations were predominantly closed as keep, this should be reported on ANI. If not, this is matter for the village pump.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This largely verifies my comments above. These nominations can be quite effective, and those who resist their broad application are taken through the ringer by proponents, which results in a rapid outflux of subject contributors over many months. I support Ymblanter's quite reasonable claim that this whole affair should be surfaced to a higher court to be resolved clearly and resolutely instead of quibbled over event by event and sport by sport. Agent00f (talk) 09:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, because the subject is clearly important enough to be on Wikipedia and no one could seriously say otherwise. In fact, I have encountered the various incarnations of the guy who started this discussion elsewhere as he has been posting requests and sending out emails for people to come vote in these MMA discussions all over the place while gloating about how he is getting away using multiple accounts to fix the votes. See here, for example. I hate to be a snitch, but when I tried to engage with this dude and he blew me off and not in a good way! This charlatan is playing y'all for suckas and that ain't right! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlito's Way or the Highway Star (talk • contribs) 17:03, 19 May 2012 (UTC) Striking comments of sock of indef blocked user. --TreyGeek (talk) 21:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I have no interest in commenting on notability and would probably follow consensus there. However, the WP:POINTiness of this nomination, as shown by comments above, is a keep argument. In general deletion decisions are very ill-made by choosing one article at random out of a large set without distinguishing it clearly from the set. JJB 18:27, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
  • Well, as established at endless debates on the same issue before, there's no way to prevent arbitrary AfD's from being filed unless there's a greater ruling. So unless we're on our way to creating such rules, this AfD is not actually functionally different than any other which checks for validity of these types of articles. Agent00f (talk) 10:27, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mtking obviously doesnt like tennis either. Portillo (talk) 02:32, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the participants in this discussion who have been discussing MMANOT should try MEDCAB to settle that issue before moving into new similar areas like this. This entire area of policy should be reviewed by larger WP community so that all kinds of sports and nonsports articles can be judged using a similar policy. I've withdrawn my keep nomination because Ymblanter pointed out elsewhere that the tennis issue should be discussed separately from the MMANOT issue even though I agree the nomination of this article is pointy. Factseducado (talk) 14:52, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close: Nomination appears to be prove a point and not improve the article. Giving 2 days between opening a question about notability in addition to a discussion at the project talk page to rush straight to AfD is disingenuous and just plain disruptive. No comment on the appropriateness of this, but I have to wonder if WP:BEFORE had been checked. Hasteur (talk) 15:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong. AfD is not for improving an article, it is for proving a point: namely that something is notable. And if that cannot be done, then an article is deleted. In addition, your complaint about "rushing" to AfD is misguided: an AfD lasts a whole week, providing sufficient time for other editors to find and add good sources, if they exist. And when that happens, most people who !voted "delete" will change their !votes. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 16:37, 20 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It may meet the wikiprojects notability essay (not an adopted guideline), however it appears that this essay is not in line with the wider community accepted policy of what WP is not. Mtking (edits) 00:00, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does meet Wikiproject Tennis notability Guidelines which tends to follow Wikipedia:Notability (sports). Obviously each sport is a bit different which is why baseball project adopted a naming convention based on official baseball cards. You won't find that under general wikipedia guidelines either. Once you get sport specific general guidelines won't work, so Tennis Project adopted what would be and wouldn't be notable so editors would be able to know right off the bat which tournaments qualify and which don't. Wiki guidelines are rules of thumb to keep in mind but they are very generalized and usually tweaked a bit to fit each projects' goals. It is consensus and common sense in Tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you look again at the projects notability page you will see the projects notability page is indeed an essay (in the Gray banner at the top of the Notability section) and not a WP guideline. Secondly if you reed the section on Sports Events notability on the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) page you will see it says "Articles about notable games should have well-sourced prose, not merely a list of stats." this article lacks any well-sourced prose and is merely a list of stats. Mtking (edits) 00:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If the issue is indeed that this article 'lacks any well-sourced prose' then why not add a tag to this effect on the page and give the editors a chance to improve it?. Would it not be normal to start with such a constructive option instead of directly chosing the destructive option of AfD? I'm honestly baffled by this approach. --Wolbo (talk) 01:18, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ, I am going by WP:PERSISTENCE where it says "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" Mtking (edits) 04:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that the Estoril Open is not the "final series (or single game when there is not a series) determining the champion of" the ATP or WTA -- so it does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 16:43, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Per Wikipedia:SPORTSEVENT#Tennis, if there was some tennis player who participated in the main draw of the 2004 Estoril Open but no other tennis tournaments before or after, that single lifetime participation would make them notable enough for a Wikipedia article. -- P.T. Aufrette (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a different issue -- WP:NOTINHERITED. And I would hope that the player's biography would contain more than just his scorecard. Biographies are likely to be productive of more encyclopaedic content than a single competition. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 17:34, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per all above arguments. Also, it should be noted that the Notability article clearly states (under the "Notability is not temporary" section) that "once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." This certainly applies for this tournament article. Thus, this rebuts the opening claim that this article has not "demonstrated enduring notability," since enduring does not equate to ongoing. —Bloom6132 (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2012 (UTC)Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Bloom6132 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)[reply]
  • Keep Tournament belongs to the highest class of men's tennis tournaments; the professional ATP Tour. It's a week long event consisting of 40 tennis matches with a significant prize money ($500,000) and with worldwide coverage (incl. TV). It features top-ranking world class players including in this specific case the best clay court tennis player in history (Nadal). It is an entirely notable sports event, also according to the consensus of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines and, by extension, of the Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guidelines.--Wolbo (talk) 20:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Per Ymblanter's suggestion above of taking the broader issue to Village Pump, a quite relevant conversation has started there over issues relevant to this AfD. Participants can voice their questions/concerns about wiki policy there. Thanks. Agent00f (talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note : the following edtiors !vote "Keeps" appear to have been canvassed by Wolbo :
Fyunck(click) (here), HotHat (here), Jevansen (here), Gap9551 (here) and Bloom6132 (here)
Mtking (edits) 03:38, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While true that a note was left, it is also true that this argument was ongoing at Project Tennis and that I was a participant where we told you it was a good article. You put it up for AfD anyway. I check a couple time per week at Tennis Article Alerts and saw this already. I cannot speak for the others you listed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:42, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, I'd have found out about this discussion one way or another. I check the sports AFDs regularly. A simple note informing me of this discussion hasn't swayed my vote, which would have been cast regardless. This seems to be a desperate attempt to rescue a failing AFD. If this is the way you want to do it ... best of luck. Jevansen (talk) 05:56, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All ATP and WTA Tour tournaments are notable and get significant media coverage. They have a lot of matches during a week and draws are the best way to show them. The results are the main thing afterwards and they are in the official sources so editors often don't bother to add independant sources but they would be easy to find. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All sports events get significant media coverage, but that coverage is just routine, what is needed is coverage as per WP:PERSISTENCE and that does not appear to exist and therefore the article fails WP:NOT.Mtking (edits) 13:14, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are enough reasons given why this article is notable per the notability guidelines / advice / commonsense but even if we just follow WP:PERSISTENCE you conveniently overlook the word 'likely' in that guideline which is a rather important word and there for a reason and it at the very least shows that your statement '...and therefore the article fails' is in its absoluteness unfounded and incorrect.--Wolbo (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I also got a note from Wolbo, but I would not say this is canvassing, since he just notified a few of the more active editors in project Tennis. Nominator had first questioned these tournament articles on the project Talk, and I advised him to put it in AfD if he disagreed with the standing project's guidance for tournament articles: [1].
While I think we have too much tennis coverage on wp (and project Tennis already deleted over 200 tournament articles from the lower "Futures" circuit earlier this year), it would be going too far to delete the events from the ATP and WTA main tour. Reducing tennis tournament coverage (if that's what the broader community wants) would naturally start with the events in the much smaller (and significantly less notable) ATP challenger tour events, for which we create 100s or articles every year: Category:2011 ATP Challenger Tour.
As for this AfD. The Estoril Open is an international event, attracting several top players every year, and like all other ATP or WTA main tour events it gets broadcast on tv in a lot of countries in different continents. It also gets daily coverage in news media (and not only in Portugal), so there are plenty of sources to write an article. If nominator's arguments are accepted, then we will have 1000s of articles to delete in all kind of sports. And not only in sports, what are we going to do with articles like Idols (South Africa season 6) or Big Brother 3 (UK)? This kind of yearly "events" have little lasting notability outside their respective countries, while the Estoril Open gets international participation and coverage. It would be double standards to keep national "Idols (your country) season x" type articles, while deleting international tennis tournaments. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC
  • I agree, we may have had too many non-notable articles which people have wasted time in creating, instead of filling in the gaps of missing tournament articles for the 250, 500, 1000 and Grand Slam events (and their predecessors) and the equivalents on the WTA Tour. I appealed ages ago to WP:Tennis for help in creating these articles, which I was doing at quite a rate. I also created most of the current templates for the ATP and WTA tours with redlinks to missing articles still being far too common. There is no grounds for deletion here. 03md 18:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge survey

edit

Merge Comment - one thing I do notice from time to time is that in smaller tournaments like this, even though they are absolutely notable and should be kept, the disciplines could easily all fit on one page. The main page is really too short as are the individual singles and doubles articles. I test merged them and then reverted it back Right Here for an example of what it could look like. When the ladies singles and doubles get added it seems like it would still be just fine where it would wind up at 35–40k in size. It just seems to me that it would be better to have one nice sized article rather than several small ones. This won't work with larger tournaments on the tour because of bigger draws and extra prose, but it could work with many. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Yes, this is something that has been proposed on the project Tennis before, but didn't seem to get much traction. For all but the four grand slams and the Master tournaments we should merge the tournament articles into one. It would be even better if the draws are put into collapsible boxes, and a bit more prose gets added, for example about the tournament final (for which there is always properly sourced material to find). I am all for such merges, even if it pushes the article to 110 or 120 kB.MakeSense64 (talk) 08:16, 27 May 2012 (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/2004_Estoril_Open&oldid=1137512846"