Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2005 US Open – Men's Qualifying Singles


 * 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. Listed for 3 weeks with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:20, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

2005 US Open – Men's Qualifying Singles

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article brought me the attention of how much encyclopedic it is, it consists of a tournament graphic about the men whom qualified to for the men's single main draw, it infringes a lot of policies and was even under investigation for claims of copyright violation which its outcome I am declined to accept, and since this investigation the article was left incomplete, its context is not clear, you clearly cannot see what the article is all about, but there are more problems, it is a content fork which wikipedia is somewhat against (but not when the article and its navigation become either long or confusing because of its size what is not the case), the article's notability is also another thing to discuss, it is debatable to a minimum and if not is a case of inherit. Eduemoni↑talk↓  01:21, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the "claims of copyright violation" derive from the fact that the pages was created by Darius Dhlomo who was discovered to have created a lot of copyright infringements, so every article he ever created was blanked for investigation as a precaution. This article is not a copyright infringement (in fact most of the articles he created aren't), and indeed lists of sports statistics don't meet the threshold of originality for copyright protection anyway. It is obvious what the article is about and that isn't necessarily a reason for deletion in the first place. I cannot see how this is a content fork (of what, exactly?) and articles on sections of major tennis tournaments are very common. Hut 8.5 08:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note - 2005 US Open – Men's Qualifying Singles is a content fork of this 2005 US Open – Men's Singles. Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 17:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * It's not a content fork of that article. There's a difference between a content fork and a sub-article. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - I've browsed through US Open Tennis articles and found out that Qualifying sessions are not always present, it is something inconstant e.g. an article about 2005, 2007, 2009 US Open exist, but 2008, 2006, 2004, 2003 Qualifying don't. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 17:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * So? The fact they're not always present doesn't imply they never should be. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 20:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * In fact? No, but they are all not notable, if I know how to mass nominee I'd nominee them all. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 23:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 00:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep the qualifying tournaments are like a mini challenger tour event, which is notable. 400 not out (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree it's appropriate to strike the comment because the user was a sockpuppet, but it is definitely not appropriate to strike comments simply because you don't agree with them. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 14:05, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't strike the comment because I didn't agree with it, usually when a sockpuppet post a comment in an afd, it is regarded as void. <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 05:03, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You said you struck it partly because "it doesn't make any sense at all" . That is not a valid reason to strike a comment. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 08:28, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I stroke it because it doesn't make sense (not because I didn't agree with it as you stated above) and it is a vote by a sockpuppet and you removed my comment, that is sorta weird. Why doesn't it make any sense? Which mini challenger tour is notable in Wikipedia? Several articles about cups and tournaments feature the qualified teams or athletes within the main article, and when they have it apart the article is either a mess or it is huge, but in a way or in other the sub article does not provide enough context, can't you see that this is a content fork? <b style="background:#FEE;padding:5px;font-size:10px"><b style="color:#913">Ed</b><b style="color:#C13">ue</b><b style="color:#D35">mo</b><b style="color:#E57">ni</b><sup style='color:green'>↑talk↓ </b> 14:37, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I have never removed any of your comments. You are arguing that the rationale of 400's comment above - that mini challenger tour events are notable - is flawed, which means you don't agree with it. As far as I can see the tennis rankings give as much weight to qualifying for the Grand Slam tournaments (such as this one) as to getting to the later stages of a tournament in the ATP Challenger Tour, the individual tournaments of which commonly have their own articles. It is standard practice to move content to a sub-article when the main article gets too long (see Content forking). Moving the content of this article would make it unacceptably long, so including it in a sub-article is perfectly acceptable and is not content forking. The article provides more than enough context for the reader to see what it is talking about, and even if it doesn't that's not a problem that merits deletion of the article. <b style="color:#FF0000;">Hut 8.5</b> 16:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" /> Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:05, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

<hr style="width:55%;" />
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:20, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

<hr style="width:55%;" />


 * Keep. I said delete at Articles for deletion/2011 ASB Classic – Singles Qualifying (closed as no consensus) which was about tournaments outside the top-25 yearly events, but there is much larger interest in qualifying for Grand Slams - the top-4 yearly events far above the rest. It should have been created with round 1 and 2 results but the qualifying finals is better than nothing. For some historic interest, this was the first time Andy Murray qualified for a Grand Slam (he got a wild card at the previous Wimbledon). There are no copyright or content fork concerns. It's a valid subtopic of 2005 US Open – Men's Singles which is a valid subtopic of 2005 US Open (tennis) and so on. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:55, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. All of the nominee's points or vague, nonsensical or void. "it consists of a tournament graphic about the men whom qualified to for the men's single main draw" is hardly a criterion for deletion, "it infringes a lot of policies" fails to mention what policies, and it is neither a Copyvio nor a CFork. The only reasonable thing brought up in the nomination was how the article is incomplete, which is in no way a criterion for deletion, it is in a wiki rule, though I am in the process of updating it. Sellyme Talk 10:21, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Note: To remain in cohesion with the rest of Wikipedia, the article should be moved to 2005 US Open – Men's Singles Qualifying. Sellyme Talk 10:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.