Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Aberto de São Paulo – Doubles


 * 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 in one form or another. A merge to parent articles can be discussed elsewhere but it's pretty clear there is no consensus to completely remove the information found in these articles. Considering the amount of articles, an RFC on whether to have such articles at all might be the best way to go forward. Regards SoWhy 20:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

2014 Aberto de São Paulo – Doubles

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Group nomination for all Challenger level tennis tournaments in January-April 2014 - doubles competetions only. Challenger tournaments are low-level tournaments (total prize money for the tournament $50,000, of which only a smaller part goes to the doubles) which usually get little attention anyway, and everything that needs to be said is already included in the main article about the tournament. This nomination is only for the doubles, the singles may need deletion as well but in general singles competition get more attention than doubles competition.

This AfD is based on the first one I did, Articles for deletion/2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park – Doubles. If successful, similar ones for other years will be started as well.

If for some doubles tournament on this list there are specific reasons why it received more than routine coverage (say, Federer or Nadal participating :-) ) then of course these can be removed from this nomination. Fram (talk) 13:20, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Also nominated:

These are all challenger tournaments from January until April 2014. Yes, there is a rather impressive number of such tournaments and articles, so this will do for one AfD. Fram (talk) 13:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete all I don't think Federer or Nadal would have played for the equivalent of the bus fare home ;) WP is not for standalone articles on sports statistics without any context to explain why these run-of-the-mill tournaments are notable. (I suspect the equivalent singles tournaments have the same issue.) Mattg82 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:18, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:19, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment I've fixed one of the articles that was nominated from the main article for the tournament to the doubles draw, as I presume was intended given that the other nominated pages are all doubles draw pages. Will probably !vote later after further consideration. Iffy★Chat -- 18:57, 8 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Leave

You are going to delete dozens of articles, because Nadal nor Federer did not play it??! TheLightBlue (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep – I would say these tournaments are all notable similar to how second-level football is notable, as a stepping stone to getting to the highest level of competition. And there are plenty of sources to be found about Challenger-level tournaments. It's just that no one is adding any. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:18, 14 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment – While I'm strongly in favour of these articles existing, this is predominantly because of how personally useful I find them, not due to specific Wikipedia guidelines. Since that's not really a valid reason I'm not going to explicitly "vote" Keep, but I just want to stress that most people in this AfD (and all others for Challenger doubles articles) that support deletion tend to do so under the rationale of it being a "split", and that this information would otherwise be in the year's main article. Only the doubles articles have been nominated here, with the suggestion that singles articles generally warrant existence. This means that a consensus to delete will result in one of two scenarios: either the information currently available on the doubles article will never again be available on Wikipedia, or the doubles article will be listed on the tournament's main page, while the singles articles will remain split off, creating a fairly inconsistent and reader-unfriendly hierarchy. As you can probably work out from my terminology I'm not a huge fan of the latter, but that's by far the lesser problem in this AfD chain.


 * I'd just like to stress that of those two options, the first one keeps happening. The AfD you cite as precedent happened over 8 months ago. Here are some direct quotes from it:


 * Everything should be on the 2014 Tianjin Health Industry Park page since it's so small as is.
 * Anything that needs to be told can be told on the main page of the tournament.
 * There is no need (or basis) for the article split. Base article is not too large.


 * Again, note that only three people commented on this nomination, so despite unanimous consensus that the article should be merged and deleted, this never actually happened, and the article was just deleted.


 * since you seem to be taking it as a personal project to establish a consensus and then enforce that consistently, I implore you to also prioritise any consensus of merging, rather than risk the further deletion of valuable content. I understand that you can view these deleted pages and may not have even noticed this issue, but as far as I'm aware no active members of WP:TENNIS have those same permissions, and this doesn't seem to be taken into consideration before deletion occurs. This results in the worst case scenario of content getting deleted against consensus, with no-one who actually cares having any ability to rectify this. Sellyme Talk 07:15, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 13:17, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep all Now let me remind you that this is the second tier of tennis competition and you are saying that it should be deleted because "it's not a major tournament", that is crap as this is development that really shouldn't be discuss on here. So I am sorry but Fram you are being that kind of person who doesn't even care about the doubles and want them all gone. This is one of those times where its an easy keep here. Now the article from the Tianjin Health Industry Park doubles, that should of been kept but no on that discussion. Animation is developing 00:22, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notability is never inherited, but if the individual year for a tennis tournament is notable, the results of the notable tournament should also be notable, even if they're broken out onto a separate page. You can't delete the doubles without also deleting the singles or the entire event, in my view. All three of these pages - the year, the singles, and the doubles - are part of the same event. It's possible some of these events are not notable, but for a group delete, I have to vote keep, or at the very least merge. SportingFlyer (talk) 00:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Replies. The important information in each case is already present in the parent article on the tournament (compare e.g. 2014 Morelos Open – Doubles to 2014 Morelos Open). We now have three articles on each of these tournaments, where no one is actually writing them, no one is reading them either, but still they need to be created and kept because it is claimed that they should be kept because, well, that part is unclear. Arguments that we should keep the doubles tournament article because we otherwise need to delete the main tournament articles as well are spurious. While the "keep"s are in the majority, none of them have shown how these are notable enough to keep as separate articles.
 * As an example, take Spir, who won the 2014 Visit Panamá Cup de Chitré – Doubles. Where are the independent sources about this doubles tournament? And if they don't exist, why should this be kept? The WP:BURDEN of showing the required notability is on those wanting to keep this. Fram (talk) 07:33, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The independent sources about that doubles tournament are mostly found under "Visit Panama Cup", not Cup de Chitré. It's fairly common for news coverage to be found under slightly different names to the "official" one when in a different language to the tournament host. Here's some articles about Juan-Carlos Spir's participation in the tournament 1 2. No doubt someone who actually speaks a language other than English would be much better than me at finding sources for a tournament in which less than 25% of the field comes from an English-speaking country. Sellyme Talk 09:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The first source is a Georgia Tech website reporting about a Georgia Tech tennis player, not an independent source. The second one is fine (but very short), but even so it would be much better placed in the main tournament article, which lists the doubles winners as well and doesn't have any independent sources either (which applies to most or all of these tournament articles, not just this one). Fram (talk) 10:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge all in to their parent articles as an acceptable WP:ATD, I don't see enough evidence of notability for these tournaments to have a separate page for the doubles draw, and the information isn't so large as to keep them split (these tournaments with 16 pairs are roughly 8-12kb each, even in the case of Men's and Women's tournaments, that would be about 24kb at the largest). The same could be done for singles too (taking the size up to about 48kb for a tournament with Men's and Women's competitions) but that's a debate for another time as there's a stronger case for notability for those tournaments. Iffy★Chat -- 13:45, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge - Per longstanding Tennis Project consensus, ALL Challenger events, singles and doubles are notable. You can find sources for all the events. However, that doesn't mean we must create a separate singles and doubles draw for the minor league events. Case in point is the tournament listed...2014 BNP Paribas de Nouvelle-Calédonie. The article is woefully small and both the singles and doubles draws for the 2014 event should be merged into one article. We don't split an article just because we can. We split it because it has gotten too unwieldy. This is a perfect example. So the info is vital, but not vital enough for a separate article. Merge this. One thing though... Per Tennis Project Guidelines and consensus, all singles and doubles events are treated equally. What we do to one of them we tend to do to both. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete all Articles do not merit a stand alone page in Wikipedia. WP is not for standalone articles on sports statistics. Merge will only be stored as collection info/directory/depository which is not Wikipedia policy.  CASSIOPEIA(talk</b>) 11:09, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge all to the tournament articles. As the tournaments are notable the information on the games results is relevant to those articles which are all quite short and would benefit from the expansion Atlantic306 (talk) 15:35, 22 February 2018 (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.