Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 ATP World Tour


 * 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. Michig (talk) 09:23, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

2017 ATP World Tour

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

We just started the 2016 ATP World Tour and now someone has created a 2017 World Tour article. Way way way too early for this. I tried a proposed deletion to no avail so now it's a standard deletion nomination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete should be speedy! Legacypac (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   Let It Go    09:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Human 3015   Let It Go    09:34, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep The schedule for the 2017 and 2018 tours have been confirmed. I have seen major tournaments from other sports been given an article years before the event before. Seasider91 (talk) 11:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not an argument whether to keep or delete an article....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:50, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:CRYSTAL - "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place"  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That WP:Crystal sentence is for mentioning things in preexisting articles... not an article itself. This is ridiculously early. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it applies to articles too. Why is it "ridiculously early"? When should it be created? One day before it starts? 30 days? 31 days? It meets WP:V with WP:RS to state it's scheduled to happen. At worst it should be redirected to the main ATP article, but as it stands it violates no WP policy, so should not be deleted.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see that. Let's put it this way... almost every single article for an individual tournament has been deleted by the entire wikipedia community if it's more that 60 days prior to its start....sometimes more than 30 days. Anything more has always been considered way to early "by consensus". Now this isn't a tournament, this is the 2017 ATP tour, but it's a year before it starts. It violates no policy, but it easily violates consensus and should be speedily deleted. I would have no real problem with it being redirected to the ATP article, and then come November recreating it with more pertinent info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:02, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Why November? What if it was 31 October? And your claim of "almost every single article for an individual tournament has been deleted by the entire wikipedia community if it's more that 60 days prior to its start" is completly made up. I'm part of "...the entire wikipedia community..." and I recall no such discussion.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:18, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not made up. Tennis Project has brought these events up many times and they almost always get deleted or redirected till we get much closer to the event. As for your 31 October stuff, you're simply being argumentative. I used 60 days as a pretty good indicator and rule of thumb and of course the time/date is not etched in stone. But a year is way off kilter, and two years is hard to fathom. Look at it like the garbage can law in my city. If you don't bring in the cans by 8pm the day of collection you're breaking city ordinance. But as long as you bring them in by the next day no one cares. Start taking them in 2 or 3 days late on a regular basis you'll get reported and keep doing it and your cans will be confiscated. So certainly there must be flexibility depending on the tournament significance, but I think a year out is much much too early. Fyunck(click) (talk) 11:11, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * So what about 61 days? How is that any different from the 60?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Cool, I can agree to that. 61 days it is. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to the article about the association. While I hate to suggest deleting articles about upcoming events per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:TOOSOON, I can't find many independent publications talking about this even itself just yet, so I guess this will have to apply here. edtiorEهեইдအီးËეεઈדוארई電子ಇអ៊ី전자ഇī 00:34, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding the full content of 2017 ATP World Tour to Association of Tennis Professionals would add too much detail to the latter article. Do you suggest only listing changes in 2017 compared to the 2016 world tour in the ATP article? That could be a good compromise if deletion/redirect is the outcome of this discussion. Gap9551 (talk) 18:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I assume it was created now because ATP published the calendar 13 January. They also published the 2018 calendar and the author also created 2018 ATP World Tour. With the full calendars known except the location of a new pre-Wimbledon event and the possibility of changes, the articles have almost as much information now as shortly before the seasons start. Some readers will be interested in the calendars and I don't see good reason to delete them now just to recreate them later. 2015 ATP World Tour was created in February 2014 and already had 1155 views in March. The empty progress columns look silly now but they could be removed without deleting the articles. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but Category:Scheduled sports events have lots of articles with far less information and some of them have been kept at AfD like Articles for deletion/2017 BWF World Championships, Articles for deletion/2021 World Aquatics Championships, Articles for deletion/2021 World Championships in Athletics. The calendars have useful information that wouldn't fit elsewhere, and the Google search already finds independent sources. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Which is why I also nominated that article for deletion. I still think it's silly to list an empty season a year in advance, and don't get me started on a 2018 season. And while it's true that "some" events don't get deleted, I could easily throw others in like 2016 Wimbledon Championships, 2016 US Open (tennis), and 2016 French Open that have been deleted multiple times. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:CRYSTAL applies and is met. There must be enough relevant content available, of course, and that is the case here. WP:TOOSOON says: If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered. Sources exist, but a lack of independent sources could be a concern for notability, even if the ATP source seems very reliable. That said, Fyunck(click) has a strong point about consensus in WikiProject Tennis about waiting with article creation until shortly before the tournament/tour. I'm not familiar with those discussions and I would like to hear more about the arguments used, and how they compare to WP:CRYSTAL. I vote 'keep' at this time based on the more general guidelines. Gap9551 (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just so I don't err on understanding your pov. If Wimbledon or the Taiwan Open release official dates for future events 5 years out (and we can source it), we can make new encyclopedic articles about them? Because that's all this article is about... The events have all listed their scheduled dates so the ATP has released the full schedule. Other than the fact that those tournaments will exist in the future, there is nothing. No financial commitments, no draws, no player commitments, no round by round schedules, no tickets, etc... Only a date. Even the number of players in the draw is speculation since many events can change that. Also, per the sources, there is no mention that the points distribution will change/be tweaked for those events or Davis Cup, so those charts are not sourced. I think this is bad precedent for an encyclopedia. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Having only a date is insufficient for an article like 2016 Wimbledon Championships, and I agree we'd need the kind of information you mention, otherwise the article would have almost no content. But 2017 ATP World Tour is not about one event, but about the order in which a large number of events are held. It is not only about providing information about each event individually, but also about the relationships between various events, for example, which events are held in the same week, which events are held the week before a Grand Slam, which events are held during the Asian swing, how many weeks are there between the French Open and Wimbledon, etc. In my opinion, that is a large part of the value of this article. Either way, unlike articles for separate events, 2017 ATP World Tour has a lot of content. Not having enough content for each event article individually could even be an argument for making one article combining all of them instead. Gap9551 (talk) 22:49, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok... however a lot of the content is conjecture, not fact. All the release says is the place, event type, the date and the court surface. It says nothing about the draw numbers (which do change), the point distributions (which also change), so that type of inclusion is WP:OR. This should be simply a list. I still disagree with it's inclusion as I find it the same as listing Madison Square Garden's concerts for the next 3 years. And this is a year ahead...2017.... there's also a 2018 article up for deletion. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Draw information etc. that is not in the source should be removed, I think. Draws usually stay the same from year to year, but as you said, we shouldn't assume that. I like your idea of This should be simply a list. The current table is way too large with all the empty columns, plus the unlinked draw text in the left-most column. We could replace it with a simple table with columns for week number, date, city, event, event level, and surface. Each event row should have only a single line of text (unlike the 5+ lines in the current table), so the whole table wouldn't be very long. In due time, the table can be changed to the normal format (the format that is currently used). Let's wait for more opinions. Gap9551 (talk) 00:32, 19 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. There is no reason ATP season 2017 will not happen, and plenty on info present on it aleady. Naki (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it will happen. So will the 2018, 2019, 2020 and 2021 seasons. That doesn't mean we make empty frame-work articles for them in January of 2016. I don't think we do have "plenty of info." If people here feel there's enough info to warrant keeping it, that's fine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2016 (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.