Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ivanovic–S. Williams match at the 2014 Australian 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   delete. Lankiveil (speak to me) 14:14, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Ivanovic–S. Williams match at the 2014 Australian Open

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Completely unnotable in any historical context. Being the most talked about on Twitter does not merit a page. Disability expert (talk) 13:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed - Twitter "traffic" isn't listed as a criterion for passing WP:Notability. Mayumashu (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Its confirmed as notable right now, social media is accessible like Twitter and other news pages. The most one is the longest tennis match in recorded history is much notable.
 * Changed to snow delete and the event isn't much meet WP:NOT. ApprenticeFan  work 09:00, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Fourth-round matches don't get a Wikipedia page, no matter how many tweets they may have generated. This match was an upset, nothing more. Its quality was unremarkable at best (as the statistics show) and the match hasn't had any sort impact on the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicolasJz (talk • contribs) 08:48, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep References are strong, and the Twitter coverage is not the only claim to notability. Admiral Caius (talk) 15:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Upsets in sports happen all the time. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events) "An event is presumed to be notable if it receives significant, non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time."  All coverage of this event is routine and will likely not persist over a period of time.Sxg169 (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Sxg169.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - every professional level sports match will have twitter traffic and will be reported in the media enough to create some references. Wikipedia is not an archive and as Sxg169 said, the coverage of this event is routine and not persisting. Pi        (Talk to me!  ) 19:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - as per sxg169, coverage of this game will not persist. Especially as Ivanovic lost her next match anyways. Karl 334   Talk-  -Contribs  21:31, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge - perhaps merging the details of this match into the 2014 Australian Open page could be sufficient enough. MasterMind5991 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete - not at all notable in comparison to any of the other matches in the 2014 Australian Open - if truly of interest then it should be added to a Williams/Ivanovic rivalry page or section on their individual pages.Avimonster (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sufficient coverage in 2014 Australian Open.Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Why does it need it's own page, I really don't get it. Dencod16 (talk) 10:19, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete already covered in 2014_Australian_Open. LibStar (talk) 00:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Not notable.--Wolbo (talk) 01:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete – I agree with previous two judgements. BenYes? 01:38, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete I came across this page because of the "(details)" link on the 2014 AO Women's Singles page. I thought, "Wow, what crazy thing happened in this match that merits its own article?" and I discover the answers amounts to, "Ivanovic won!" The "Significance" section seems like a preemptive strike against the AfD, I think the creator knew it was (rightly) coming. Mreleganza (talk) 02:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - If this match has a page, why doesn't every other upset of the No. 1 ranked player have one as well? E.g. Lisicki - Williams, Stephens - Williams. A short reference to it is enough in 2014_Australian_Open.Popsiclesare (talk) 06:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - Someone who wrote it surely has big sense of humour. No.14 won against No.1 - and is that notable event? Biggest joke of Wikipedia Tennis history. TheLightBlue (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * delete only bunch of quotation and synthesis of its significance. That would also be recenitsm. It isnothing like the Isner-Mahut gameLihaas (talk) 10:45, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Strong delete Nonsense. Top seeds lose in slams all the time. There can be notable early-round matches (Isner-Mahut is the obvious example), but this isn't one of them. People arguing for twitter notability: what will this match have left once we get to Roland Garros in May and some other match gets tweeted about even more? Nothing. —Ed Cormany (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete no lasting notability at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Upset wins happen often due to conditions, weather or the top seeds physical fitness (or lack thereof) in a game. No.14 winning against No.1 isn't a big surprise anyway and shouldn't be a big upset but if an unranked player beat the top seed in a game, is Wikipedia going to have an article on each and every such result? The result would not be nice to see with lots of stray articles here and there linked to a certain player's career. --Artene50 (talk) 01:59, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is just a normal upset in the course of tennis history. Nothing notable here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:05, 27 January 2014 (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.