Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gonzales–Rosewall 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 no consensus. Although this does appear to be a slam-dunk "Keep", many of the Keep rationales are very flimsy and don't really address anything approaching a Wikipedia policy, so I'm closing this as N/C. Black Kite (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Gonzales–Rosewall rivalry

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Per WP:NSports, sports rivalries are not inherently notable. There is nothing here to indicate that these players had a unique, independently notable rivalry. They were merely competitors. Tvx1 13:24, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Two of the greatest players who ever lived, who played each other all over the world well over a hundred times over a 15-year period, and YOU say that's not a notable rivalry? Geez. If not, then why not nominate all the OTHER tennis rivalries for deletion also. I will certainly opposite this proposal as vigorously as I can! Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:31, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Just look at the article. The only prose is the lead sentence. Save for that it's rather indiscriminate. Even though the players are obviously notable, there is no evidence here that their rivalry is independently notable. Number of encounters means nothing in itself. Bear in mind that they spent a lot of their joint careers on the dedicated pro tour which had a limited number of players in comparison to the amateur tour. That resulted in elevated amount of encounters between the limited number of players that did play on the pro tour. Everything that can be mentioned here can also be stated on their own articles.Tvx1 15:33, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 15:46, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU

(T) 15:47, 9 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Your opinion that this is not a notable rivalry is simply that -- your OPINION. I suggest that you go to the actual LIST of tennis rivalries, and read the introduction to that list. Here is what it says: In tennis history there have been a number of famous rivalries. This is a list of some of the greatest rivalries.

For the purpose of this article only, the criteria for inclusion are (all must be met): Gonzales and Rosewall meet all the criteria of that list. Therefore it is included along with all of the other rivalries shown. You cannot take this one out without taking out maybe a dozen others. Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Both players must have a career high ranking of world No. 3 or better, and one of them must have reached No. 1.
 * The players must have met multiple times in semi-finals or finals of a Grand Slam tournament (in pre-Open era also, Pro Slam tournament and WCCC, WHCC counts).
 * They must have at least a total of 12 career meetings in main tour matches.
 * Delete: As may be, but Mr. Peirce makes a few key errors. First off, the creator/maintainers of the List of tennis rivalries article have no authority or power to create Wikipedia notability guidelines.  For another, it's settled policy that the criteria for inclusion in a list is much lower than the level of notability necessary to sustain a standalone article.  For a third, the existence of similar articles (that likewise don't qualify for notability) doesn't immunize this one from having to comply with notability guidelines. For a fourth, not only are sports rivalries not inherently notable, they're explicitly not notable, as per WP:NRIVALRY, which holds: "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline." But it's alright, because this article can easily be saved: just come up with reliable sources providing significant coverage to this rivalry, as the GNG enjoins.  Barring that, I don't see it.   Ravenswing   17:16, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. That list is rather suspect, with its arbitrary criteria. It should be based on reliable sources anointing the rivalries. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think there is confusion here between apples and oranges. Before 1968 and Open Tennis, the professional tennis world was VERY different. The pros, who were the world's best players, were essentially outcasts. The New York Times, for example, did not have thousands of words per week written about the rivalry between the touring pros Vines and Perry and Vines and Budge, the way they do today with story after story about Joker vs. Fed, vs. Murray, vs. whoever else. It's hard to go back 80 years and find the sort of sourced reference you apparently want. Are you seriously trying to say that Vines-Tilden, Vines-Perry, Vines-Budge, Riggs-Budge were NOT rivalries? That they were pro-rassling fake matches? I think you need to get some perspective on this whole business and not judge it from the vantage point of 2017 in which you can spent 10 seconds Googling and find a thousand references to any present-day rivalry you care to search for.... Hayford Peirce (talk) 04:00, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Ahhh, but here's the rub: notability on Wikipedia is not determined by how important you are or how skilled you might be. It's determined by whether the world's heard of you or not.  The strictures of WP:V, and indeed of all notability criteria, hinge on significant coverage in reliable sources. Tennis isn't the only sport where amateurs at one time received a great deal more attention and acclaim than the pros; indeed, the only North American sport I can think of offhand where they didn't is baseball.  The perspective you need to gain here is that the answer to "but there wasn't press coverage for X back then!" isn't that Wikipedia policies and guidelines cease to apply.  It's that subjects that did not receive press coverage do not qualify for Wikipedia articles.   Ravenswing   07:16, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'm not claiming that this rivalry did not exist. I'm questioning that it was notable enough to merit a dedicated article. At present I can see no evidence that it did. Everything that is mentioned in this article can easily been incorporated in the players' articles (if it isn't there already).Tvx1 09:07, 10 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So there would be no objection if the entire table of results for Gorgo and Ken were copied into their two respective articles? I myself would RATHER see them THERE than in this separate article that can be difficult to find. And, of course, I can copy the whole Rivalry article, and all its sub-articles over to Citizendium, but the exposure would be a lot less. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:21, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Lists of important statistics in athletes' articles are common enough, although I'd question whether head-to-head rivalry statistics were that important as such things went. What you choose to copy over to some other wiki is, of course, between you and that wiki's own rules.   Ravenswing   18:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems that there is a proliferation of rivalry articles in the modern era, especially those that involve active players. Certainly, you can't have new pages popping up for any two players that have a following. But deleting a longstanding existing article like this one, which has been maintained for years, seems like a draconian action. It would make perfect sense to prevent new articles on pre-Open Era rivalries; you've got articles on rivalries like Federer-Roddick and I guess the equivalent of the pre-Open Era would be something like Gonzalez-Buchholz. By all means prevent those from popping up. But why take the nuclear option on existing articles? Krosero (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with the above comment 100%. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: Because every article on Wikipedia is subject to the appropriate notability criteria, and failing them, are liable for deletion; that's the whole point of AfD. Having survived a long time on Wikipedia does not guarantee the article a permanent spot, or exempt it from following notability guidelines.   Ravenswing   14:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If an article has been on Wikipedia for a long time and nobody has paid attention to it, and perhaps it was just created by a minor fan base for frivolous reasons, then it really is just clutter. But this article is not like that and I fail to see where exactly its mere existence is causing harm, or, to put it in less dramatic terms, how it is a negative. The article is read by readers regularly I presume (or at least I see no sign that it is not) and it's been continually maintained. When I go to it to draw on information or to study it, I regularly link from it to other articles on Wikipedia (player bios); presumably other readers do so as well. I can't see how its mere existence will encourage others to create frivolous modern-day rivalry pages; this article, on its face, to every observer, is not about any minor player. I don't know specifically who started it years ago but it was surely serious tennis historians. So I'm not clear on what the negative is in keeping it. Taking up too much bandwidth? Krosero (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It was started back in July of 2011, six years ago, and was added to by at least half a dozen editors over the next year. Since then it has been continually edited and upgraded by various people, all of them, apparently, notable experts in tennis matters (at least judging from the quality of their edits over the years). I lived in Tahiti for many years, and was a small businessman of sorts. Trying to deal with the government and the entrenched bureaucracy was about my biggest problem. Frustrated people in Tahiti trying to get something, ANYthing done, used to frequently say, including in the pages of the local newspapers: "For every person here trying to DO something, there are TWO people trying to tear it down." That's what this proposal seems like to me. Hayford Peirce (talk) 17:10, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * That's essentially what I'm getting at too. I don't deny that there may be a problem with proliferation of unnecessary/trivial articles that are only being created and read by minor fans bases. But to take down something already existing -- if that something is being read and maintained and is regarded as something useful -- seems like something else entirely. Krosero (talk) 17:46, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Especially when some of the rivalries are among the very greatest players to have ever walked onto the court. Vines, Tilden, Budge, Perry, Riggs, Segura, Kramer, Sedgman, Gonzalez, Hoad, Rosewall, Laver. I would think that we would be trying to add MORE information about these now-obscure, even forgotten, players, rather than trying to REMOVE information about them. As Bill James, the inventor, more or less, of Sabremetrics once wrote: "Unless you adjust for periods and changes in baseball, then you have to come to the conclusion that ALL the best pitchers of all time lived between 1900 and 1920 and that all the best hitters lived in the 1920s and '30s." It's the same here -- ANYONE can go online today and in ten seconds find out a MILLION non-Wikipedia facts about Fed, Nadal, Murray, Joker, etc. etc. To read the comments across the internet of almost any tennis fan under 60 years old, it's as if tennis didn't even EXIST until 1968. And that no one at all before that date had the faintest idea how to play it. The list of rivalries between the old-time players is just one more way of shining light into the darkness. As you so astutely say, a Gonzales-Buchholtz Rivalry doesn't shine much light on it, but a list of their matches would nevertheless be interesting within their INDIVIDUAL articles. Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:06, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My bad, it was *Sampras*, not McEnroe who hadn't heard of Gonzales. Hayford Peirce (talk) 19:09, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Comment. Ok, we need to stop the assumptions of bad faith here. Nobody is trying to tear anything down. Wikipedia works with guidelines and policies and each article needs to satisfy them. Per WP:NRivalry, sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Despite all the text which has been written here, no evidence has been provided that this rivalry is independently notable. Wikipedia is a general purpose encyclopedia and not a tennis fansite dedicated to righting the great wrong of some tennis players not having gotten as much attention as some think they should have.Tvx1 21:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually a number of the notable features of this rivalry were stated early on, including having over a hundred encounters -- but that was actually understated. Gonzalez and Rosewall met at least 200 times and I do not know of any other pair of players who met so many times. That goes for Tilden/Nusslein, Vines/Perry, Vines/Tilden, each of which had over 100 meetings but all falling short of this one. And Gonzalez and Rosewall had more meetings at pro majors than any of those earlier rivalries; they also met in two world series; and they met over the course of 13 years which also out-strips those earlier rivalries (only Laver/Rosewall compares in that regard). Rosewall also succeeded Gonzalez as #1 (like Vines/Perry), including a pro major meeting in the '61 French Pro final that was described at the time as a succession. A counter-argument was made above that number of meetings in itself is not notable, because of the structure of the old pro tour -- but that argument only holds weight if you're comparing a rivalry on the old pro tour against a rivalry that took place under different conditions: like comparing Gonzalez/Rosewall against Federer/Nadal. Of course the differing structures of the two tours makes a difference in number of meetings. But compare Gonzalez/Rosewall against other rivalries on the old pro tour, instead. It outstrips all those other earlier rivalries I named in number of meetings overall, in number of meetings at majors, in having one alltime great succeeding another as number one (except Vines/Perry which is similar), and especially in length of time that they remained active rivals (13 years). Krosero (talk) 14:04, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe some of the above information should be put into the lede paragraph, satisfying one of the "problems". Hayford Peirce (talk) 00:28, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No. We do not write our own thoughts or synthesis in wikipedia articles. We reflect and cite the sources.Tvx1 11:22, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L3X1 (distænt write)   )evidence(  14:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: I just don't see any in-depth coverage from reliable sources that talk about this rivalry. -- Darth Mike (talk) 20:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep: Why erase a lot of well-documented history? Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:59, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Because it fails the guidelines and policies. See also WP:EFFORT.Tvx1 19:27, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep - I would tend to keep this one as it was a pretty big rivalry in its day. Sure it's tougher to find sources for the pre-open era except for books, but there is nothing special about how we handle today's rivalries. If there are 4 or 5 rivalries today, you can darn well expect that there were 4-5 rivalries 20 years ago, and 4 or 5 rivalries 20 years before that. It was not as intense as the Kramer-Gonzales rivalry or as renowned as the Laver-Rosewall rivalry, but it was pretty big in the late 50's early 60s. there needs to be a little more leeway given to players from the past where the sources are a little harder to find. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:16, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Jack Kramer in his book The Game has a fair amount about Rosewall v. Gorgo. I could easily write a lede paragraph that had info from a documented source, one of the most important figures in the history of tennis, about their rivalry. My question: Is it worth doing? Hayford Peirce (talk) 23:07, 23 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep: I thoroughly agree that some leeway should be given to a rivalry which so clearly was not minor and meets so many of the criteria of an important rivalry. And certainly let's have the Kramer excerpt(s), that is well worth doing. Krosero (talk) 15:19, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have begun writing the lede, adding general info first. I will add more stuff from Kramer about the early days of the rivalry in a moment. Hayford Peirce (talk) 18:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: To address the recent changes

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  So Why  10:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Hayford Peirce (talk) 16:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC) Ambox warning pn.svg — Duplicate vote: Hayford Peirce (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.
 * Comment You cannot vote twice during an AFD, even if it's relisted.Tvx1 10:37, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't-don't know who's doing the counting, or where. Either I can remove this, or it doesn't have to be counted. Hayford Peirce (talk) 20:05, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You should simply strike it.Tvx1 22:12, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have put a strikethrough on it. Hayford Peirce (talk) 14:31, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Besides, in the list of tennis rivalries there are missing for instance the Segura-Sedgman, Kramer-Segura, Rosewall-Segura (the clashes between the little men but great players), Kramer-Riggs, Budge-Vines, Sedgman-Rosewall, Sedgman-Hoad, Gonzales-Trabert (as much hatred between both players than between Connors and McEnore) and others that I forget at this very moment whereas Laver-Olmedo, Laver-Sedgman or Laver-Stolle have never been great rivalries. In any valuable world pro-amateur rankings, Olmedo has never been better than world #8; Sedgman was clearly declining in 1963 though he was still world #5 or 6 and Laver-Stolle was never a true rivalry, the only year when Stolle was a good player and faced Laver was in 1967. If rivalries should be deleted in Wikipedia the last three could be chosen (but personally I would also keep both of them because they are however interesting). To come back to Gonzales-Rosewall they were not mere competitors : their rivalry was the world #1 place and the turning point probably the 1961 French Pro final when Gonzales gave way to Rosewall. Look at the records and you will see that between May 1964 and July 1965 the tripartite rivalry between Laver, Rosewall and Gonzales is one of the greatest of all time, possibly greater than Borg-McEnroe-Connors. The last three players had not won true majors the same year while in 1964, Laver won the London Indoor Pro (Wembley) and the US Pro (Brookline), Rosewall the French Pro (Paris Coubertin) and Gonzalez the US Pro Indoor (White Plains). These 4 tourneys were the true majors in 1964 (not the Davis Cup or the amateur Slam tourneys). Should I recall the score of the Gonzalez-Rosewall match at White Plains, 5–7, 3–6, 10–8, 11–9, 8–6 then at the French Pro at the Stade de Coubertin in Paris, the match of the tourney was the semi between both players (won by Kenny 4–6, 6–2, 5–7, 7–5, 6–2) ? Buy some monthly tennis magazines of the time and you will see that it was a great rivalry : Tennis de France, World Tennis always talked about their great confrontations, especially that year of 1964. In the summer 1964 both players have been chosen to face each other in the 1964 Trofeo Facis tour (and in 1961 in the Euro Tour). Both players have faced each other in two world pro tours (1957 and 1960) : not many others did that (Tilden-Nüsslein, Vines-Perry, Budge-Riggs, Gonzales-Hoad and if my memory is right, no others).
 * Keep Books such as "Muscles: The story of Ken Rosewall, Australia's little master of the courts", "Twenty Years at the Top" and "Der Grösste Meister Die denkwürdige Karriere des australischen Tennisspielers Kenneth Robert Rosewall" are references about Kenneth Robert Rosewall's career. They clearly describe the rivalry between Gonzales (Gonzalez) and Rosewall. It took Rosewall about 4-5 years after turning professional to disloge Gonzales from the world #1 place and though Gonzales retired in October 1961, he came back in 1964 as Gonzalez (with a "z") and resumed his rivalry with Rosewall as described in another book "The Return of a Champion: Pancho Gonzalez' Golden Year 1964". Rosewall was the tennis king between Gonzales and Laver so there were inevitably great rivalries for Rosewall with his predecessor (Gonzales) and his successor (Laver).

Your example of great rivalries ("This is a list of some of the greatest rivalries. ") are just examples of rivalries chosen by modern journalists about the open era but not journalists of the ancient times : is there any source coming from Edward Clarkson Potter Jr., Lance Tingay, Arthur Wallis Myers, Linda Timms, William Tilden, Henry Christian Hopman and many others I forget ? Absolutely not. Buy American Lawn Tennis, World Tennis, Tennis de France magazines and then you will find all the sources of the time. Sources by modern journalists who think that tennis is born with Björn Borg are not valid sources but Pastime classifying the British players in the 1890's is THE source of the tennis in those times.

Delete the Gonzales-Rosewall rivalry article would be a nonsense. The fact that you don't find sources, I guess by Internet, is irrelevant. In those times, newspapers, magazines and books were the sources and they related of the rivalry between both players (Gonzales and Rosewall).Carlo Colussi (talk) 09:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Meets GNG per the significant number of contemporary reliable sources as pointed out by Carlo Colussi and others. Gap9551 (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep The vast sum of human knowledge built up over millennia, that has been written in newspapers, magazines and books is now living in libraries, archives, museums the fact that all of it has not yet been digitized and is therefore not instantly verifiable is no reason to delete this article and to satisfy digital age sourcing Pat Cash seems to think it was a "Huge Rivalry" here: Http://www.patcash.co.uk/tag/greatest-of-all-time/ --Navops47 (talk) 16:36, 29 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.