Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novak Djokovic in 2011


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:18, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Novak Djokovic in 2011

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This should be deleted per WP:NOTSTATS and WP:NOONECARES. Yeah, he's having a good year, but surely all his relevant doings can be covered at Novak_Djokovic? Plus, I'm not too keen on this "X in YYYY" format. If we're going to do it for a guy who swats around a ball for a living, why not for individuals who actually made a contribution to history, say Napoleon in 1815, Adolf Hitler in 1939 or Nelson Mandela in 1991? Perhaps because the format itself is flawed, and we'd best quash this experiment before anyone else gets the idea to replicate it. - Biruitorul Talk 02:29, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Maybe delete it if he doesn't win at roland garros? Or keep it until he finishes his winning streak if it turns out to be not that significant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.0.61 (talk) 19:56, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with nominator. This is just a table of statistics. BTW the AfD template does not appear on the article at this time. Kitfoxxe (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep You do make good points, but given Roger Federer in 2011 was approved after a long debate (and all his other years), this season makes sense for Novak given he is undefeated. I don't think he needs pages for any other years, but Novak Djokovic in 2011 really is special. Supertigerman (talk) 19:46, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep per above, the article can be expanded. --92.32.36.73 (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Atmoz (talk) 18:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree completely. Except with achievement relativization. Bahati (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep There will be too much victories to import in main article. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 14:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. I agree with Biruitorul that this format is fundamentally flawed.  If this win streak is sufficiently notable to be discussed in the main article for the athlete (and it is), then that should be done in the summary style that is appropriate for Wikipedia articles.  Detailed match statistics have been largely accepted for the pages of the various tournaments, and can be found there by the interested reader.  Individual athlete/year articles are undue weight; this isn't a record setting performance, and even if it were, we do not -- and should not -- have articles such as Babe Ruth in 1927 or Donald Bradman in 1930 or even LaDainian Tomlinson in 2006.  As for WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if this is deleted, I'll happily nominate the Roger Federer by year article series on identical grounds.  Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 18:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Why not take this article and place it in the main Novak article? Yes, this year has been a great one for Djokovic but for Wikipedia, it goes along the lines of, as stated above, WP:NOONECARES. I am a tennis fan myself and I like Djokovic, but I feel that Novak in 2011 should not be another whole article mostly because it's not very important and it can just be added to his main article. This article already says the exact same thing that's in here. Just add the chart in that section and the problem is solved.KingRatedRIV (talk) 14:54, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep as there are enough references to pass GNG. Armbrust  Talk to me  Contribs  21:41, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The GNG isn't the alpha and omega of inclusion guidelines. Djokovic is clearly notable.  His 2011 performance deserves mention in his article; it has received significant coverage.  But breaking athletes' performance out by year in this manner places undue weight on each year's figures and creates articles that are more suited to a sports almanac than an encyclopedia.  Really, almost all of the time, the year-to-year performance of an athlete is run-of-the-mill.  Athletes like Djokovic or Federer or Babe Ruth or Donald Bradman are notable, and they accomplish notable things -- often in several different years.  But their play in each of those years is expected.  It is those athletes doing their job.  It isn't practical or appropriate to have an article about each year of each individual athlete's play. Serpent&#39;s Choice (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep Can't delete because of no one cares. For goodness sake. if one puts this into the main article it would make the page really stable and undue weight to this year. As per Roger Federer and Rafa Nadal years keep. Good twins (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Per Supertigerman. -- WhiteWriter speaks 18:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete A perfect example of "excessive listing of statistics" Skarioffszky (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Too long to be merged. This is why we split articles to subpages. It cannot be fitted into the main article with so many details in it (but a summary in main Djokovic page with a link to this article is proper). If Napoleon did so many things in 1815 then let it go his way. It is popularist to say that "if we allow this every year within a person's life will have an article from now on". No we are talking about this special year, which is special indeed. I will be the first to vote delete for all other Djokovic in #year pages.  Lajbi  Holla @ me  •  CP  18:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment The reason it is too long to be merged is that it mentions every game, set and match he played this year. Leave out the excessive statistical detail and you're left with no more than one healthy paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.171.56.13 (talk) 12:38, 28 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seriously? This is inviting the creation of infinitely many subarticles about infinitely many people. Stifle (talk) 11:29, 31 May 2011 (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.