Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maria Sharapova career history


 * 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. If anyone feels that any of the content is worth merging, contact me and I'll restore it as a redirect. Stifle (talk) 08:29, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Maria Sharapova career history

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

prod contested by IP editor. This page was based on the Maria Sharapova article as of 03:38, May 5, 2009. This article was forked off to placate an editor vehemently opposed to the removal of any detail. I believe it is now surplus to requirements, as the editor is no longer active, and the article contains an excess of trivial detail Ohconfucius (talk) 15:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there's any material in this article not duplicated at Maria Sharapova? If so, then merge there and keep as a redirect. If there's nothing to merge, then delete. Olaf Davis (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This article is great and has vast amounts of important information that is not in the Maria Sharapova article! The latter article is more of an overview while this article has the forked detail.  Keep it, please!!  Chidel (talk) 20:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you think the main article would be too big if we merged them? Or do you have another objection to that idea? Olaf Davis (talk) 10:34, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 19:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete or Merge per Olaf Davis. This article looks to contain too much detail. Peridon (talk) 21:14, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ohconfucius. The article is littered with trivialities.Dino Velvet 8MM (talk) 04:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or Merge Lots of important information? If so it belongs in the mainpage, if not its not worth mentioning...reading it looks like lost of the latter to me.  Fuzbaby (talk) 04:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. A lot of content forking, but why not remove the duplicated content from main article to make it more readable?Biophys (talk) 02:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because this article, as it stands, is a rather indiscriminate collection of very trivial detail and resembles a fan-site rather than an encyclopaedic biography. As I said, this is derived from an older, untrimmed version of the main article, so if we stripped the main article of all the duplications, there would be nothing left. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:53, 30 June 2009 (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.