Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Federer–Roddick rivalry (2nd nomination)


 * 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) KnightMove (talk) 18:50, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Federer–Roddick rivalry
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Way too one-sided to ever be a notable "rivalry". It has therefore been deleted in 2010, see first discussion at Articles for deletion/Federer–Roddick rivalry and the talk page. The page has been recreated in 2012 without any increased notability - unless you count as such that Roddick won one more game to bring the total score to a glorious 3:21, and then retired. It's a pity for the properly prepared text and the load of work invested, but not notable remains not notable. KnightMove (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 22:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I'd keep this one. Not because it was a true rivalry (Federer pretty much pwned Roddick), but because it was perceived as such by so many sources. You couldn't flip on a sports channel for several years in the 2000s without a commercial on the rivalry, a sports anchor talking about the rivalry, or the two of them talking about the rivalry. It was everywhere. Because of the sources, and because it's been here for 5 years, it should probably stay. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Fyunck(click): So, where are those sources? Did anything of this survive in a quotable form? The article lists only three references, covering only two individual matches between the two. --KnightMove (talk) 12:54, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't create the article, so it absolutely needs much better sourcing. That doesn't mean we get rid of it. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You could add these 4 if you'd like: [ABC News, New Haven Register, World Tennis magazine, Times of India. The thing is, during their heyday, someone would have created this article and there would have been no question it would have stayed since the press glorified it beyond it's actual merits. Using hindsight, it might have been a mental and endorsement rivalry, but the results not so much. While it was blown out of proportion at the time, it's not wikipedia's place to pass judgement on what happened in the past... we only report it. [[User:Fyunck(click)|Fyunck(click)]] (talk) 18:32, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep I do think this rivalry gained a lot of coverage, even if it was one-sided. I think what Fyunck(click) found goes a long way to showing GNG is met.  For those criticizing the one-sided nature of the actual rivalry, its about the coverage and not the competitiveness/balance.  Navy–Notre Dame football rivalry is very one-sided, yet clearly it's notable.  Connecticut–Notre Dame women's basketball rivalry is not only one-sided, but most of Notre Dame's success came in a brief period of time, yet this is a premier woman's basketball rivalry and has a good amount of coverage.  Note that my point is not WP:WAX, but to show that notability is distinct from competitiveness.  For the point about there being a previous article that was deleted, it garnered two "votes" (three counting the nom).  Not exactly a vast consensus.  Besides, the issue then seems to have been not any sources about the rivalry itself.  With what Fyunck found, I think the previous discussion is now moot and we are looking anew.  In other words, what changed between 2010 and now is someone bothered to look for and find references that was not found before.  So I say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm convinced and withdraw the nomination. Thanks to Fyunck(click) and RonSigPi.


 * 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.