Talk:2015 Stan Wawrinka tennis season

Unnecessary article
People need to stop creating articles for individual seasons for every player, initially they were created for particularly noteworthy tennis seasons, e.g. Federer's 2006 season or Nadal's 2010 season, but Wawrinka is hardly a great of the game, yet he's somehow merited an article for the current season in which he has barely made an impact. I think any article of a player's season in which they haven't at least won a Grand Slam title should be deleted, this is getting ridiculous. Thetradge (talk) 16 May 2015, 14:53 UTC
 * I think whoever created this article overestimated Wawrinka's success basing his/her judgement too much on Wawrinka's 2014 season. Besides, up until Indian Wells he was actually doing pretty well with two wins and a semifinal appearance at the Australian Open. Rstrong1234 (talk) 15:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually the requirements for season articles is pretty strict and there are very few of them in any individual year. A player must have won a Grand Slam tournament singles title that year, or, if they won a grand slam singles title previously and then won at least 25 matches and reached a top 5 ranking during the year they also qualify. There are very few players these days that qualify. Wawrinka just squeaked in, having been ranked number 4, and probably will never get another season article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:21, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it looks like he just won another slam and is back to No.4 now. Does this mean he will get another article in 2016? Rstrong1234 (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "IF" he starts the next season in the top 5. But that is now more likely than it was. He's becoming a force on the tour winning a Major a year. Heck, he could win a Career Grand Slam before Djokovic. The way to look at it is there are thousands upon thousands of tennis bios and hundreds of career statistic articles. For seasonal articles there are 7 right now in 2015. In 2014 there were 10, 2013 there were 8, in 2012 there were 6, in 20111 and 2010 there were 5 each. They are such a minor issue because of their relative rarity. The criteria used to be much looser so the project discussed and tightened up the requirements. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2015 (UTC)