Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Raducanu career statistics


 * 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 no consensus.  Sandstein  12:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Emma Raducanu career statistics

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Based on WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines, it is apparent that "career statistics" articles are for situations where the amount of notable statistics grows too great for the player's own page ("Created when a player's main article gets too large, per wikipedia standards."; "If the scoreboard is more than {twenty?}; consider splitting out into a separate article named "{personName} career statistics". Such as Novak Djokovic career statistics."). Raducanu is not in such a position (a very short career to date and only one final - all relevant information could easily be incorporated at Emma Raducanu. It is clear that these types of pages are not intended to be created just for any player that wins a Grand Slam. Macosal (talk) 14:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there a reason why you aren't suggesting other players with similar career lengths have theirs deleted such as Sinner and Alcaraz? This is a pretty common statistics page for players that also haven't won a slam such as Sinner and Yastremska. 350z33 (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. But at least in those cases they have played a handful of finals (not that I don’t think they should be deleted too). But this is just the most extreme example of a player with very limited career statistics having a whole article dedicated to them. The WP:TENNIS policy I cited above suggests number of finals may be an appropriate criteria. What does this article achieve? It could easily be incorporated at Emma Raducanu. Macosal (talk) 15:53, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Then you should nominate them all for deletion based on the criteria set out with #20 or whatever else someone said on that rather than now suggest finals appearances to avoid those and isolate this one. What is the purpose of this article that is expanding wikipedia? To provide more information on a subject particularly one that has more views and coverage than others. I rather expand articles than contract them. I think most of tennis wiki is lacking so deleting a page we know will continue to grow while also having more views than other similar statistic pages makes no sense. 350z33 (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I might do (or equally, you can). As I said, this is just the most flagrant example I’ve come across of a player with a very limited career having a standalone stats article. As I said, all this information could easily be added to Emma Raducanu, we shouldn’t merely expand Wikipedia for the sake of it (see WP:NOTSTATS. It could be worth discussing exactly when these articles should be created at WT:TENNIS, but this one can’t be on the right side of the line whatever way you look at it, in my view. Macosal (talk) 03:14, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I won't flag those as I'm okay with them (and this page) staying as I know they will continue to expand as well as have a high number of page views compared to other players that have a standalone (i.e. Yastremska who hasn't achieved as much and has a standalone stats page with far less views at 3k YTD vs 18k for this one made only a few months ago). The only thing I ask is that if you end up having your request for deletion go through, will you kindly migrate the material over to the mainpage rather than delete and then not do what you say it could be? Thanks. 350z33 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I see a lot of empty or near-empty tables and not much to justify a standalone article. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Raducanu is a young tennis player and, I am sure, as her career developes she will have reached results in doubles at the majors, not just the singles, which will consequently futher expand the article. Besides she won a slam. Isn't that noticeable enough? Qwerty284651 (talk) 16:43, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Is that not textbook WP:CRYSTAL? We can always recreate this article if and when there is a greater amount of stats to display. Further, as outlined above, I'm not saying these stats shouldn't appear on Wikipedia, just that they dont (based on WP:TENNIS guidance) merit an article of their own right now. I don't think winning one Grand Slam makes a player's entire career statistics noteworthy automatically, and that doesn't appear to have been the WP:TENNIS consensus. Macosal (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep there is plenty to keep here and standard practice for players who have won a major tournament. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:42, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Weak keep While it is best to be merged back to Emma Raducanu, this approach is a bit impractical as it would affect the quality of the Emma Raducanu article, so just leave as it is. Unnamelessness (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * keep As it doesn't makes sense to delete statics of a Notable Athlete like Emma Raducanu. Suryabeej      ⋠talk⋡    13:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep This player won a major (the highest level title in professional tennis) and those type of players have separate pages for their career statistics and there is enough info in the article to be a standalone and it continues to expand by the week.
 * 350z33 (talk) 00:50, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   09:16, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women, Tennis,  and England. Skynxnex (talk) 13:21, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep: Raducanu's page has generated as much views in a year as the next 3 most viewed female players as the most popular woman tennis stars have had combined in 7 years. Way after the protraction effect from the event, its baseline is stable and meets that of the men Top 3. This is a clear indicator of a significant news coverage that will require the article of an primary career active BLP being split out for navigability, and as such merging it back to the main article is a waste of time.
 * Respublik (talk) 12:52, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Aside from the fact that the above stat is wrong, page views are absolutely not an indicator of significant coverage, let alone a predictor that an article will need to be split out for navigability in future (obviously). Macosal (talk) 01:56, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction, I had this number generated from massviewing a page of European players and forgot about that part before reviewing it upon your challenge. That's only true between European players. So I retract the original statement. I'm not changing my stance, as the other statement about it not being an outcome and an index of a significant media coverage and a symptom of that becoming a need to split per WP:AS lacks argumentation, is ignorant and wrong. Respublik (talk) 13:34, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * See WP:PVS: “Page stats can help determine how popular a page is, but are not an indication of a topic's notability. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines are based on coverage found in reliable sources. If a page's stats are low, it is not a reason to consider it for deletion, and if high it is not a reason to save it from deletion.“ Macosal (talk) 21:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see you flag any other player page, which you claim also do not meet criteria but have yet to go out of your way to try and delete them. Raducanu's mainpage has the 2nd most views of all active WTA players year to date at over 2m with Iga barely above that.  Next highs are Ons and Coco at nearly 1 million less views.  Again, players that win major titles like Raducanu have their own statistics page which has enough information here in addition to the mainpage as standalones.  Please flag the other statistics pages to be consistent in what you think should not exist. You're the only person opposed to this page. 350z33 (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:NOTAVOTE, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and re-read the quote from WP:PVS in my previous comment. It doesn’t matter how many people have viewed this page, and I’m not obliged to do anything to any other pages. I’m absolutely happy to engage in a reasoned discussion about this AFD but most keep arguments are literally contrary to policies and guidelines… Macosal (talk) 22:28, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Guidelines" are to guide...not hard and fast rules. It's already been discussed repeatedly. Players that win a major title have a separate statistics page. They all do. And even those that don't with under 20 major appearances (and less than 10) do as given in prior examples because they are guidelines. Best of luck with your endeavors. 350z33 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And also the initial request for deletion is not what you are conveying in the proposal. "all relevant information could easily be incorporated at Emma Raducanu" is what you originally stated and later restated as "As I said, all this information could easily be added to Emma Raducanu." This should be a proposal for Merging so an admin doesn't delete this all without migrating it. 350z33 (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NOTSTATS. There is no prose contextualization of the stats tables as required by our policy at WP:NOT. It states, "Statistics that lack context or explanation can reduce readability and may be confusing; accordingly, statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability, and articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context."4meter4 (talk) 14:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Again, this proposal is actually to merge the page into the main page (please see my last comment). Not delete. Therefore this incorrectly listed deletion proposal should be changed to the merge proposal on the talk page.  Also, this standalone statistics page is inline with the rest of  the tennis wikipages.  That's not the issue here.  Please look at the other player statistics pages for comparison. Admins should not accidentally delete this statistics info. Thanks. 350z33 (talk) 16:35, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Um... you are trying to steer the conversation in a way that is procedurally not accurate. This is not WP:MERGEPROP, it’s WP:AFD, and you didn’t nominate the article;  did. The proposal we are considering here is the one made by the nominator which is Macosal. You are of course free to make a merge argument per WP:ATD (which has not been done as you never struck your keep vote), but the nomination and its language is the central proposal of this thread. I personally oppose a merge as the statistics lack context and I don’t think they add much value to our coverage of Raducanu no matter where they are located as they are currently presented. Further, if other tennis articles use similar statistics tables without context, they also should be removed per WP:NOSTATS which is a core policy that applies encyclopedia wide. 4meter4 (talk) 21:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Macosal specifically said, and later repeated, they wanted to incorporate the page content it into the main article. This is not steering.  This is pointing out they used the incorrect proposal by using deletion rather than merge.  You're now suggesting deleting every tennis player statistics whether in their mainpage or separate statistics page?  The tennis wiki project has had it created for years and goes completely against what you suggest. I'm not quite sure you have contributed to the tennis wiki if you think it's not relevant or hard to understand as if it needs more explanation than it already has. Every player page has it, whether in the mainpage (example Félix Auger-Aliassime) or separate (example Carlos Alcaraz career statistics). 350z33 (talk) 22:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think you are overstating what I said, which is that statistics tables without prose should be removed per our policies. It’s perfectly fine to have statistics tables in tennis articles, as long as they are embedded in prose sections which contextualize those tables. That is exactly what our written policy on statistics says we must do (as in its not an optional requirement but a mandatory one per WP:NOT). If tennis articles are currently not following the written policy, that is an issue the tennis WikiProject should work towards fixing. Systemic ignorance of policy in one area of the project should be confronted and changed rather than ignored and enabled. 4meter4 (talk) 22:50, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I respect your opinion, but the original vote you cast was an outright deletion of the information which is not what Macosal was proposing in their statement. When the proposal subtype and following reasoning for the proposal are discordant, as in this case where they state they want a merge and even attempted it on the main article, I ask it be made concordant. After asking Macosal to clarify, they confirmed a merge and as I said even attempted it in the mainpage after they created this deletion proposal.  Now that it has been clarified, I don't understand why this is still open for vote/debate.  A merge proposal or what you propose are fine, but that would have to be done elsewhere as you state.  My concern is this page now getting deleted when we are not even on the same understanding of what the actual desired end result is. Thanks. 350z33 (talk) 23:10, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I have re-read the conversation and respectfully I do not think the nominator has made a merge proposal at any point in this thread, other than briefly stating that it would be possible to include content like this in the main article. However, they never actually expressed the desire to merge the articles, and nobody commenting here has actually made that argument. Stating a possibility and arguing for the implementation of that possibility are two very different things. Nobody, including the nominator, has actually voted to merge. And I note the nominator made arguments in favor of deletion further down in the thread, which would seem to indicate they still wish to delete the article. The only person who has brought up merging is you, but you have a keep vote on the record; so at the moment there is still zero support for merging. 4meter4 (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect. As I said, Macosal even went ahead and attempted a merge to the main article three days after proposing this article for deletion on September 30th. That merge was reverted a few minutes later. Here is their merge:  https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emma_Raducanu&oldid=1113322248
 * And the individual that reverted it also voted "keep" here on this page. He/she stated in the undo main  article "Tht's kept on the career stats article, not the main page." Those that are voting "keep" here are part of wiki tennis project and know it's a debate of main article vs separate page.  The only individuals voting no are those that are not on wiki tennis and aren't aware of where the statistics are placed (not whether they should exist or not). 350z33 (talk) 00:27, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Be that as it may, no merge proposal has actually been made on this page in this discussion, and it is not clear that a merge is the intent of the nominator. The nominator needs to explicitly propose a merge in this thread to make their intent clear. When doing so, they should bold merge and name the target article being merged to and explain why they think a merge is appropriate. Talking around an idea but not coming right out and saying it isn't a productive way to have this conversation. Regardless, my delete vote is not changing unless there is an agreement to embed those tables inside a prose section which contextualizes the statistics in those tables. Whether that happens in the current article, or through a merge to Emma Raducanu is of minor importance; as long as it happens wherever we house these statistic tables.4meter4 (talk) 00:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We'll just agree to disagree. I showed you the actual merge attempt by Macosal after the deletion proposal was created. That's clear enough to me not even going into their written discussion here that I don't feel like repeating. Take care. 350z33 (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It may be clear to you, but it is not at all clear in this discussion and for those reading the dialogue on this page. The article was taken to WP:Articles for Deletion and wasn't taken to WP:MERGEPROP. If a merge had been the intent from the beginning, this was the WP:WRONGFORUM to come to. The only person who can clarify the intent of nominator, is, the nominator. You can not speak for them. 4meter4 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm stating it was a procedural error by the OP based on the subsequent discussion here and merge attempt to the main article in the following days. It's fine if you disagree. Putting it here for those that can't see it as clearly such as you. Thanks again. 350z33 (talk) 01:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * As says, I am in favour of deletion, not merging, as I have already expressed above. A lot of the content on the Career Statistics page is overly detailed and violates WP:NOTSTATS (e.g., a doubles performance timeline consisting of only one Tour match etc.) and so is not appropriate to merge - deletion more appropriate. The fact that some parts within the nominated article (e.g., singles career timeline)‘’could’’ be appropriate to include on Emma Raducanu does not change my overall nomination/position. Suspect the confusion has arisen because the WP:TENNIS guideline in relation to when a “career statistics” article should be created ‘’are’’ by reference to when the volume of notable stats is such that they should be split to a stand-alone article. Macosal (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You already attempted a merge on September 30th into the main article as I showed above. That's not a deletion. You can keep calling it whatever you want, but at the end of the day you attempted the merge and have discussed here multiple times to keep content in this article on the main page rather than split out. And you even stated you're in favor of recreating this article at a later time when those statistics have more years "We can always recreate this article if and when there is a greater amount of stats to display." Thanks again. 350z33 (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And as I linked earlier to Merging, merging as stated is "copying some or all content from the source page(s) into the destination page." That's exactly what you did by copying some of the content here into the main article (incorrectly at that by using the wrong header key).  Just because you don't agree with the doubles table timeline, it doesn't mean it all gets deleted. Take care. 350z33 (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

I think deletion is the most appropriate action here, as I've consistently said. I think merging would absolutely be a justifiable alternative, and made that edit you keep referring to in order to respect your request to migrate material to the main page, above, in case the article was deleted. It doesn't seem like you'd support a WP:MERGE anyway, unless I'm misunderstanding you? And people can still advocate for a merge here/the outcome of this discussion could be a merge, if that is the consensus. And yes, I certainly did say the nominated article could be remade " if and when" (emphasis added) there are more stats to include. It is WP:TOOSOON to know if we will reach that point (see WP:CRYSTAL, as I have previously suggested). We should be assessing this article on based on the past/present only. While Raducanu may well go on to have more noteworthy achievements, she may retire tomorrow, for all we know, leaving this page in its current state forever. Macosal (talk) 12:08, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the more detailed reply here. I do appreciate it. To be clear, I'm in favor of keeping the article as-is being its layout and stats are similar to other young players such as Alcaraz who have played two seasons. I am also in favor of removing the WTA1000 doubles timeline being only one match ended up being played this year (some players do not play doubles like Alcaraz). However, I am against an outright deletion as that is not inline with the rest of the tennis wiki.  If the option is merge to main article versus delete it entirely then I vote merge, but I prefer it be a standalone.
 * If none of the stats presented here, regardless if a standalone or in main article, are to be on wiki, I think that issue needs to be brought to the main tennis wiki for all to discuss to come to a consensus so all articles are consistent. I'm just asking for consistency on that end so we don't have some players with statistics (main article or separate) and others with essentially none (like this article in the event it's deleted and no parts merged into the main article). 350z33 (talk) 12:23, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @ I think you are putting the cart before the horse. The desire to standardize formatting across tennis articles doesn't supercede policies on what content should and should not be included as indicated at WP:NOT. Standardized formatting is only helpful when it serves the article in relation to all of our policies and in light of the sourcing available on a particular subject. There's no need to arbitrarily impose a format onto every single article on a tennis player. One of the benefits of wikipedia is we can have article formats that meet the needs of the individual subject and the content found in sources. An article on Serena Williams with a lengthy tennis career that has been widely covered should look different than an article on a relatively new tennis player, Emma Raducanu. The content should drive article development; not a cookie cutter format. As the career of this individual develops, you can always return to putting stats into the article when the content drives the need to do so, but at the moment a stats table isn't beneficial.4meter4 (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is already standardizing among the tennis articles as the examples I gave earlier where it's in the main article or split into a separate. The statistics, both the tables and presentation, in this page are not unique to this page as they are all formatted the same regardless of length of career so your issue applies to all of those player pages. If you're proposing this statistics page be deleted and the main article be left alone without it, it would be the only page like that and also on a notable player that won a major (such as this one). It would then be lacking in relevant content that other less notable players have (i.e Yastremska as I mentioned who has a separate statistics page). Such a discussion would be better left on the wikitennis project forum rather than this single article as the issue you have is with almost every player since most do not have careers and results like Serena. 350z33 (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That is an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. WP:WikiProject Tennis has no authority to make or change policy, and the decisions we make here at AFD must be grounded in our written policies. You still haven't demonstrated how this particular statistics table can comply with our policy at WP:NOTSTATS.4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The WP:NOT link you posted specifically states statistics, and separate statistics pages, are allowable. It specifically states to use tables, which they are here, and with explanations, which they have.  You also supported Serena's separate statistics page on your last reply, which is formatted identical to the statistics in this page.  Both are explained in tables, which are clear and with explanations, and are relevant to the individual they are discussing and not out of context.  If you can't agree with that, we will agree to disagree. Thanks. 350z33 (talk) 21:05, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , in relation to your comment “such a discussion would be better left on the wikitennis project forum rather than this single article” - it already has been, and that is where the WP:TENNIS guidance cited in my initial rationale for deletion is based. WT:TENNIS has consistently agreed that creation of career statistics articles should be based on size considerations alone. See this discussion and this one. So by all means raise this there for a more general discussion if you’d like, but as it stands you’re the one arguing against WP:TENNIS guidelines and consensus. Macosal (talk) 02:34, 21 October 2022 (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.