Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season


 * 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 delete. Can be userfied on request (though not by me).  Sandstein  14:11, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 Maria Sharapova tennis season

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seasonal tennis articles must meet the Tennis Project Guidelines, and this one isn't even close. She has not won a Grand Slam tournament this year and she is not ranked in the top 5 (she's currently 262). She might make it by year end, but not now. Federer and Nadal had the same issue and we waited until they merited a seasonal article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)


 * "Must pass" a project guideline is not a thing if the article can be shown to pass the WP:GNG. Now whether or not this one does is questionable at best. Yes, there's been quite a bit of commentary on Sharipova's invitations to and qualifying for tournaments coming off her suspension, but whether or not that is sufficient for a whole separate article instead of just a passage in the main article about her is doubtful. I'd suggest redirecting to the main article unless and until there's a reason to have a separate article (like the aforementioned tennis project guidelines). oknazevad (talk) 13:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 *  Redirect  per Oknazevad's reasoning for now. I suspect that this is an article which will wind up being sensible to re-create sooner or later (either under the guidelines cited or just because there ends up being a lot of noise and coverage of what Sharapova does post-ban), so the redirect will preserve any content worthy of being so. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 23:06, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That can certainly be done though it sets a very bad precedent for other articles. 1000's of seasonal articles could be created in the same manner with little recourse other than to redirect. This started happening in the past and caused the current guidelines to be created. And just because there could be more coverage on Sharapova post-ban doesn't mean we create a 2017 season article on her. If it's noteworthy it will go in her main article or perhaps her career statistics article. All this being said, we can do the redirect (as opposed to userfying) as long as we revisit a deletion at the end of the year if she is unqualified. I don't want someone saying later "well, this redirect has been here for 6 months so now we should keep it." Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Thousands of articles could be created, but I doubt they will be. Admittedly, I'm only the kind of tennis fan who pays attention when a Grand Slam tournament is on, so I may be the wrong man to judge that claim. In terms of revisiting a redirect if that's the way to go, sounds fair to me. I don't normally follow RfD discussions, so is "It's been around for a while" a common rationale or justification for keeping one? BigHaz - Schreit mich an 00:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I've seen it numerous times where an editor will argue that since it's been there awhile there is no reason to remove it now. In cases like this Sharapova article it's rare we have anyone say we should keep it. Season articles for players are pretty fringe in the notability dept. We usually userfy these types of articles so the editors can keep updating it. Then if perchance she wins another Major or makes the top 5 (since she has won a Major in the past), an article is ready to go. I'd rather go that way, but I'm not going to complain as long as it's not an article until such time. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. In that case, I'd support a userfication just in case. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 02:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete but Userfy - Since I opened this as a delete, I should probably make it clear that because there is a reasonable chance Sharapova could win one of the 3 remaining Majors or make it to top 5, it might be best to delete but userfy this article so the original editor can keep updating it just in case. It won't be easy for her, but she is not a run-of-the-mill player. She has a shot. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:23, 16 May 2017 (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.