Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of ATP Tour Grand Slam tournaments and Masters singles champions


 * 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. (former-admin close) Secret account 03:29, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

List of ATP Tour Grand Slam tournaments and Masters singles champions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

The reasons for its deletion are mentioned in the proposal. This article serves no purpose as the records here are already mentioned on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atp_masters and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_men's_grand_slam_tennis_champions. A fairly newly created article which serves no real purpose and is just repeating information. This is a fragment article which has no useful information than the ones already in the two mentioned articles. In fact, it is directly copying the same information in both of them. I nominate this for deletion. DBSSHASPER (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC) I would like to add, this article has titles count from 1990 only when the other two have the whole human tennis history with titles count. So, there is not a single reason to keep this just because some users use it.DBSSHASPER (talk) 19:22, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. Thanks. But where are we supposed to find the "two mentioned articles" in your "proposal"? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. I see you have just added them.MakeSense64 (talk) 07:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I use this article on a regular basis. It's great to have the most important events in tennis listed right at ones fingertips to make easy comparisons year by year. Plus the two listed in the proposed deletion only list the masters 1000 events and Majors, not the olympics and year-end championships. Here we have the four Majors, the year-end championship, the nine 1000 events, and the Olympics. These are the big events in tennis since 1990 and I believe it's vital that we keep this. I know we ask editors to "be bold" but the nominator has 17 days of edits to his credit...maybe more as an anonymous editor. They could/should have asked about this at Tennis Project after the initial "Proposed Deletion" was instantly vetoed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:01, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you saying? there were no grand slams and big titles before 1990? Sorry not convinced. Tennis is not just mere 20 years. This article serves no purpose if it inludes only 20 years of tennis titles history.DBSSHASPER (talk) 19:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This was already discussed under Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis/Archive_7.Fahidka(talk) 08:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. While this article does have some overlap with section in the other two articles that nominator mentions, I do not think it warrants deletion. This list article serves as a kind of "historic timeline" since 1990, and that overview is not provided by the other two articles. "Timeline of" specialized lists are specifically mentioned here WP:STANDALONE. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it important only after 1990? Why not an article which already exists with all these timeline and titles information? This article has nothing more than already in those two articles.DBSSHASPER (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It has more than just those two articles and our readers can tell in an instant just how well players did against their peers . And it's from 1990 because the official ATP TOUR started in 1990. The ATP itself started much earlier. Fyunck(click) (talk) 03:20, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If the official ATP tour started in 1990, why are you keeping the Grand slams records, these certainly did not start then. This article is mixing information that should not be here. Please tell me what more does it have than the articles? I do not see any. Also, you cannot compare the atp masters 1000 to its predecessors, and the article keeps sampras and agassi, if this article is to be kept, their names have to be removed. Atp masters 1000 started in 2009, it did not exist before then! DBSSHASPER (talk) 08:12, 21 May 2012


 * I'll try to help you figure it out. There are wiki tennis articles and records from the entire history of tennis... from way back in 1887. The Open Era began in 1968 and there are articles that have records and such from that time period onwards. The ATP union began in 1972 and there are articles and records from that time period onwards. The ATP didn't run the tour, it was just a union, and there were several competing tours. A member of one tour didn't usually play in events of the other tour. The tours merged and drifted with no one exactly happy about things. In 1990 the ATP took over the Tour and runs it to this day. So from 1990 there are also records and articles. This particular article lists the major events played since 1990: 1) The four Majors, 2)the now called nine "masters" events, 3)the olympics, and (if you earn enough points in those prior events) you earn the right to play in 4)the year end championships. This chart encompasses these events in one easy to see place, to be able to judge how a player has done against his peers and against history. So there's a quick explanation but I hope it helps. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And the question remains why? ATP 1000 only began in 2009. You cannot compare atp 1000 series and its predecessors. As such, to include sampras and agassi and compare them with recent players is wrong. And sorry, masters events and the recent 1000 series are different with many events not even existing from then. So your reasoning is away from the issue.DBSSHASPER (talk) 23:35, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Plus, let me point out, this article is totally misleading with the table where its listing agassi, lendl, sampras etc under masters 1000 series. this series came into existence only after 2009. Plus events like hamburg masters were part of the masters in 90, but they are not in the 1000 series. This article is a total flaw.DBSSHASPER (talk) 23:39, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * They are the same events, with a name change. Do you simply hate tennis or something? We call it the US Open with champions in the 1960s too but it was really the US National Championships. We often go by the most common name today even though a tournament was named something else in the past. Whether you call something the Super 9 or, 9 Masters, or Masters 1000...there were 9 premier 2nd level events plus a championship. What's caused this burr under your saddle? I've done my best to answer you but it's looking more and more like you don't care... that you only want it gone. I can't help you there as I think it's very relevant. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I am a huge fan of tennis. And I already can see your view and history about tennis. Hamburg is a 500 series now, why does the table include Hamburg! and NO there were more than 9 premier events then. this list also includes olympics when the title says else. Go back and check your tennis history regarding how many events there were before and what the new atp 1000 is. This discussion is useless until anyone checks tennis history. I do care a lot which is why I am clearing up that this article is flawed in every way possible. I do not wish to go on a longer discussion if no one is willing to see tennis' history, especially the masters events. The comparison table is what is the worst of this article. You cannot compare players who did not even play the same events and count their titles together. DBSSHASPER (talk) 04:58, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are not reading the chart correctly then. First, Yes there were 9 events, I don't know why you'd think otherwise. heck there were 9 events even before then in the Grand Prix Championship Series. This chart is in Tournament Order for those 9 events so as to show the progress (in masters order) over the entire year. The Hamburg Masters was played till 2008 when it's order placement was filled by a new "clay court" Madrid Masters. Hamburg was downgraded and is no longer a masters event but it remains in the chart because it was Masters event #5 for many years. The renaming of the 1000 was mainly to enforce that each event is worth 1000 points now. Madrid moved to a new slot in May and as Hamburg was downgraded Shanghai was upgraded and moved to Madrid's old spot. Otherwise it's the same old same old. This chart is really masters events 1-9 no matter where they are located. I love that about it. And you can certainly compare masters events 1-9 with no trouble at all. I really have no idea why you are so confused about this. No one else has a problem. As for the title not including the olympics, I believe that was a later ok'd addition. The title was already long enough and since it was an event that only happened every 4 years it was no big deal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - A useful overview that is not offered elsewhere. Many articles exist with information that is also present in a group of other articles, e.g. lists of medalists such as List of Olympic medalists in athletics (men). All this information can in principle be found in the different tournament result articles. The distinguishing feature is the overview of results from different seasons and types of tournament, as well as the title count. I agree, however, that expanding the article with pre-1990 results would improve it. Gap9551 (talk) 11:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - but agree with Fyunck(click) it needs to expand results from 1972 to date or at least as with other arguing points rename it eg: List of Tennis Tour Grand Slam tournaments and Top Tier event singles champions just a thought --Navops47 (talk) 07:09, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 08:52, 15 May 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.