Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Australian Open – Women's singles final


 * 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. If there still is content that should be merged elsewhere (but it appears to already having been done), drop me a note and I'll put the desired info in your userspace. Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

2018 Australian Open – Women's singles final

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article is demonstrably not more notable than similar grand slam finals, as per the guidelines of the tennis wikiproject. I've been googling this article and it doesn't have any sort of the notable press coverage that you would expect for having a whole article dedicated to it. Jonaththejonath (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep and sanction the nominator for wasting everyone's time. All Grand Slam finals get plenty of media attention. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm a little confused to why I deserve sanctions for literally following the WikiProject Tennis guidelines, which say "Matches that deserve their own articles on Wikipedia are those that have received significant coverage compared to other tennis matches at a similar level, such as matches of record-setting events or matches with significant controversies." This match wasn't a record setting event.  It didn't have significant controversies.  Unlike most of the other matches, it didn't have notable press coverage as compared to other finals.  I'm simply following the guidelines of the project here. Jonaththejonath (talk) 13:51, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 11:57, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't speedy keep this or sanction the nominator, as the tennis guidelines specify Matches that deserve their own articles on Wikipedia are those that have received significant coverage compared to other tennis matches at a similar level, such as matches of record-setting events or matches with significant controversies. Please consult WP:TENNIS before creating such articles. This one gets coverage, and I'm not sure why we wouldn't necessarily have articles on tournament finals considering they all get coverage, but it appears as if WP:TENNIS requires and/or suggests sustained coverage for coverage of matches, otherwise every tennis final would ignore NOTNEWS and be eligible for an article. If that's the case, this should probably be merged into one of the 2018 Australian Open articles. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:12, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seriously? WP:GNG overrides any tennis guidelines, specifically significant coverage: The Guardian, Sports Illustrated, Sporting News, ad infinitum. Even Vogue, of all publications, covered the semifinal matchups. This isn't the 2015 Greater Peoria Pinochle Championships. By your reasoning, we should also delete the War of 1812 because it wasn't as big as the American Civil War. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:31, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * By your logic, every single individual game of a sports playoff series would deserve a full article because of the sustained coverage it gets in several publications. I'd actually be in favor of this (as well as having an article on every final), but it's not about what I think.  I feel like those pretty clearly violate the fact that Wikipedia is not news and that it's not the job of Wikipedia to track current events.  Else, for example, there would be an article about every baseball game that had sustained press coverage nationally, which is a few every season.  I understand that you are a much more experienced editor than I am and I want to defer to established opinion, but this argument sounds like a stretch. There is a valid reason for pretty much every other tennis GS final that has its own article, where they got more than just the usual press coverage that goes around a sporting event.  Not this one Jonaththejonath (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * See also WikiProject Tennis/Grand Slam Project, which seeks to include even "every grand slam tournament draw in history." Are draws, such as the 1925 U.S. National Championships – Women's Singles, more notable than finals? Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Yuck! Crow for dinner. I assumed every Grand Slam final would have an article; I am utterly dumbfounded (gobsmacked for the British in the audience) to discover I am wrong. My abject apologies. (One tiny fig leaf: you brought an essay to a guideline/policy fight.) Clarityfiend (talk) 02:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, as you know, WP:NOT overrides WP:GNG; just because the topic of an article receives coverage does not mean that it necessarily gets included in the encyclopaedia or is eligible for an article. Project essays can be important in these types of scenarios, because they clarify what's considered routine/NOTNEWS and what would be acceptable for an article (as opposed to a guideline which says "any X is notable," which would be over-ridden by GNG, or failure thereof.) Therefore the test here is whether this event received enough lasting coverage to merit inclusion as a stand-alone article: the alternative would be merging the information into another page such as the draw, as there's no reason not to include what we have here in the encyclopaedia somewhere. I really have no opinion on whether merge or keep would be appropriate here, but I'd lean merge unless a keep argument can be made. SportingFlyer  T · C  17:44, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Coming back to this after a couple weeks I am a solid merge and delete, assuming there's anything to merge. I do not think a redirect is necessary. SportingFlyer  T · C  13:00, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete we don't put every single final of every single tournament on display here. That would be beyond ridiculous and it's why we have notability guidelines at Project Tennis. 2018 Wimbledon is covered extensively for both men and women's singles... but a separate article for each final in the history of tennis is not. If it's something quite special, where the press has talked of it being one of the greatest matches ever, then we do cover it. Are we going to put up an article on Steffi Graf's 1988 French final against Natasha Zvereva... a 6-0, 6-0 crushing? Not a chance. This was placed here because of a discussion at WikiProject Tennis and to call for sanctioning was really a low blow. And this has zero to do with wikipedia guidelines/policy. There are second round matches in lower level events that might get a ton of press because Federer or Nadal might be playing Shall we make articles for those also? No. We make sure there are articles on every single tennis tournament on the ATP and WTA tour. But not individual matches or finals on the WTA and WTA tour. Goodness, for the Olympics we have an article in 2016 on the Men's 100 meters dash. It covers the event extensively. We don't create an article on the just the final heat. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge I say we merge the two articles Women's singles and Women's singles final into 1, instead of deleting them, since the main articles contains the information for the tournament itself and the article about the final should be merges into that main one, either in the women's singles draw or the main page for the 2018 edition of the Australian Open. It would be a shame to delete the article, because the outcome of the match determined who the new number 1 player was going to be and you don't get to see those matches every day, let alone in a grand slam final. That's my opinion on the matter. Best, Qwerty284651 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv  🍁  14:53, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete - as far as I can see, there is not any information worth merging into 2018 Australian Open – Women's Singles as the parent article already contains sufficient info about the final. The stats and breakdown of each individual set are both excessive detail for an event that doesn't in itself pass WP:SPORTSEVENT. No opposition to selectively merging a couple of sentences, maybe, but certainly most of the info should not be retained. Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 19:03, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep - in my opinion every Grand Slam singles final is notable enough and receives sufficient coverage to warrant a separate article and this is in not in contradiction with WP:TENNIS guidelines. Also meets WP:GNG. This should be limited to Grand Slam and Olympic finals and only for the singles events. The content is also sufficiently distinct from 2018 Australian Open – Women's Singles. --Wolbo (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete- topic is covered by 2018 Australian Open – Women's Singles. MrsSnoozyTurtle 10:56, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.4meter4 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to 2018 Australian Open – Women's Singles. There's not enough content in this article to warrant a fork. TimTempleton (talk)  (cont)  07:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Merge (which I think is already done?) Mjquinn_id (talk) 12:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete I think this narrows down to what 'significant' means in the context of 'significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject'. Many tennis matches in grand slam series will receive coverage in reliable sources - you will be able to find a dozen or so when Djokovic beats Federer in a semi-final, but this doesn't make every semi-final notable and thus worthy of an article (subject to WP:NOT). The coverage should be a dominating event - such as if something absolutely groundbreaking happened (eg, the 'ground' on the tennis court broke open) - causing it to be a notable event. I think that's a way this issue can be reconcilled. There is nothing particularly notable about this match.  It should be deleted. Mostly neutral on whether intro content should be merged, but I don't think that the set-by-set breakdown is really necessary. Local Variable (talk) 06:03, 26 June 2021 (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.