Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ferrara 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 1983 Grand Prix (tennis). Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Ferrara Open

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Non-notable tennis competition which only ran once. I cannot find any sources at all, never mind anything that could establish notability. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 18:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete. Notability. So, ONE tournament with no real notable tennis players for a tennis circuit that doesn't even mention Ferrara??? — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC) I do agree that this event was hardly as significant as other major tennis events, but it was part of the Grand Prix tennis circuit and is counted on the Association of Tennis Professionals (ATP) web site, which I included as a source when creating this article. Additionally, I created this article as part of the effort of fulfilling one of the goals of WikiProject Tennis, which is to "Create articles for every tennis tournament for male and female players, especially since the beginning of the Open Era, including yearly articles and draws." For these reasons, I feel that this article should be maintained. User:Alexk785 (talk)
 * But If it's only ran once create the year and redirect Ferrera Open to it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.193.152 (talk) 10:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)


 *  Delete  - I can find no coverage about this tournament at all that would establish notability. All we have at this point is verification of existence. -- Whpq (talk) 17:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to 1983 Grand Prix (tennis). On second thought, the circuit is notable, and the material is verifiable and could serve to flesh out the rather sparse 1983 article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would support a merge on that rationale. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:43, 15 January 2012 (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.