Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day-by-day summaries of the 2010 Australian Open


 * 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   merge to 2010 Australian Open. Merge the other one to 2011 Australian Open. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 10:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Day-by-day summaries of the 2010 Australian Open

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I do not believe that this content merits separate articles. The 2010 article consists chiefly of uncited, informal commentary, and the 2011 article is threatening to go the same way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a sports guide; hence, this material is unsuitable. I propose that the raw scores and data be merged into 2010 Australian Open and 2011 Australian Open, and that the rest be deleted. Redirects will clearly be unnecessary.

Note that I am also nominating:
 * Day-by-day summaries of the 2011 Australian Open — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 14:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Dont quite think this belongs in this encyclopedia Five Years 16:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.
 * Transwiki to Wikinews and delete. This seems decent enough sports-page type coverage, but Wikipedia is not the sports page. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete All If no text then it's just an OOP which is not what Wiki is all about. Note I will rescue the hit for hati bit on the 2010 page. KnowIG (talk) 18:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge - It doesn't need deletion it just requires merging with the 2010 and 2011 Australian Open article. Afro  ( Talk ) 22:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge the summaries and results into the respective event articles. Brief daily summaries are useful for the yearly tournament pages, but don't merit their own pages. I'd like it better if they were cited, but the alternative (nothing but tables and lists in the articles) isn't great either. Please note that I'm backing a true merge of the content, which is presently transcluded onto the 2010 and 2011 articles. This is revealed by the appearance of AFD tags there.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it "great either"? Do you really think unverified commentary from our editors has a place in the encyclopedia? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 00:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Considering the top seeds are competing on these show courts, I would be willing to cite every listed match so we wouldn't rely on the schedule of play. Afro  ( Talk ) 01:30, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note the 2011 page is a content fork. But still don't think this stuff should be on here. KnowIG (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * @AD: I admittedly looked at only the first few days of the 2010 summaries, which were primarily restating the uncited (mostly) scores from the tables. I peeked at a few of the later summaries, and you are correct that there is more commentary-type prose there. Of course, we never want unreferenced content in articles, but it disappoints me that we can't do more with an article like 2010 Australian Open than to have it be a giant list. If done properly, summaries would really enhance it. I also noticed that the summaries of the men's and women's finals are referenced. Do you believe that these, at least, are worth retaining?  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:14, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Post-match information such as "In the men's final, Roger Federer defeated Andy Murray to win his 16th Grand Slam title and increase his own record. It was also his fourth Australian Open title, which tied him with Andre Agassi in most titles won in the Open Era." is fine, I think. Details particular to each match, such as "Federer took the first and second sets with one break in each.", strike me as extraneous. So I agree with you in part. What do you think? — Anonymous Dissident  Talk 01:51, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like Day 10, which verges on a game-by-game summary, is clearly too much even if the info was cited. The women's final summary has this issue, though I think it could be trimmed if necessary. I personally don't have as much of a problem with the sentence you mention, and the one that follows, because they are cited and relatively brief. Reasonable minds can have differing views on this, and I wouldn't complain if they were cut, as long as something is left. A couple of the summaries of doubles finals are short and could be saved as well; I'll see what I can do with them.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:41, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Cites are now in for the summaries of the three major doubles finals. Perhaps these can be included as part of a merge, if one happens.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 00:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep 2011 summaries and Edit 2010 summaries. In reviewing the 2010 and 2011 summaries, I see two different issues.  The first issue is the paragraph summary portion that people seem to have issue with.  I agree that this is un-cited commentary that should be removed.  However, the second issue are the table summaries stating which matches were played at the marquee court, the order of these matches, the scores of these matches, which matches were played at night, etc.  I think this information is important and should be kept in some manner.  For example, I think a quick way to find out what seeds lost on a particular day and what players have played on the biggest court(s) is important information that is easily accessible with these tables and that should be part of wikipedia. RonSigPi (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep 2011 Summaries and Edit 2010 Summaries. I agree with Ron that the paragraph summaries in 2010 needs some oversight. I'm not sure if it can even be improved as I'm rather new to Wikipedia. Otherwise, as Ron had suggested, it would ultimately have to be removed. The table summaries in both years should be kept as it provides results of games played on the main courts, which usually hosts notable seeded players, in an organized table. Scott523 (talk) 04:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 21:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge-Keep &mdash; I think you all need to go back and look at 2009 Australian Open, 2009 French Open, 2009 Wimbledon Championships, 2009 US Open, 2010 French Open, 2010 Wimbledon Championships, 2010 US Open, before the closing admin deletes these in the first place because their is consensus for them. All that needs to be done is to remove the content forks, which these are, and put them back on the main article for the tournaments in the appropriate sections.  I think editiors have gotten lazy by thinking all you have to do is to say update the tables without putting in prose, and that would be suffice, which it is not.  I think merge and added sourced prose would be the most beneficial thing to do with these articles.  I am retired, so I will make no further comment about these, and I that is because I really don't have time for this stuff on wikipedia anymore.  Good Day or Good Night all! BLUE DOG TN 19:24, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete or merge to their respective articles. Wikipedia is not the news. –MuZemike 17:30, 28 January 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.