Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Djokovic–Wawrinka rivalry


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Djokovic–Wawrinka rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NPSORTS, sports rivalries are not inherently notable. There's nothing to indicate these players have a particular, notable rivalry. Not in the least through Wawrinka's inconsistent form in major tournaments. They do not have had an unique amount of encounters in tennis terms. They are merely competitors. Tvx1 09:10, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wawrinka just doesn't have the sustained record to elevate their meetings to a noteworthy rivalry. A New York Times article says it all with the title "An Overlooked Rivalry: Novak Djokovic and Stan Wawrinka". Clarityfiend (talk) 10:06, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:17, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  A  Train talk 07:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - I didn't realize this rivalry article existed till now. It is inherent in the sport that players of similar caliber will meet many times. That does not a notable rivalry make. Per NSport, "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." They have to really be special and have significant coverage. Obviously, pre-1970 tennis rivalries will have a harder time in finding the relevant sources, so we have to allow some leeway there. But Djokovic-Wawrinka is routine. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - per nom and Fyunck(click), this rivalry is not particularly notable, at least not enough to justify a separte article.--Wolbo (talk) 08:38, 24 August 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.