The result was keep. Consensus is that this annual competition is notable enough for its own article. However, since the content of the articles is currently limited mostly to scores and results, it may be appropriate to have a merge discussion on the article's talk page (to merge the men's singles and men's doubles articles to the main article). -Scottywong | prattle _ 23:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, Notwithstanding the WikiProject article recommendations, this sports event fails the WP:NOT policy as it is for an event without any demonstrated "enduring notability". Not sourced and only sources I can find are of the routine type every professorial sports event gets.
Also nominating
for the same reasons that there are no sources demonstrating enduring notability. Mt king (edits) 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
COMMENT Per Ymblanter's suggestion above of taking the broader issue to Village Pump, a quite relevant conversation has started there over issues relevant to this AfD. Participants can voice their questions/concerns about wiki policy there. Thanks. Agent00f ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Merge Comment - one thing I do notice from time to time is that in smaller tournaments like this, even though they are absolutely notable and should be kept, the disciplines could easily all fit on one page. The main page is really too short as are the individual singles and doubles articles. I test merged them and then reverted it back Right Here for an example of what it could look like. When the ladies singles and doubles get added it seems like it would still be just fine where it would wind up at 35–40k in size. It just seems to me that it would be better to have one nice sized article rather than several small ones. This won't work with larger tournaments on the tour because of bigger draws and extra prose, but it could work with many. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. Consensus is that this annual competition is notable enough for its own article. However, since the content of the articles is currently limited mostly to scores and results, it may be appropriate to have a merge discussion on the article's talk page (to merge the men's singles and men's doubles articles to the main article). -Scottywong | prattle _ 23:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Contested prod, Notwithstanding the WikiProject article recommendations, this sports event fails the WP:NOT policy as it is for an event without any demonstrated "enduring notability". Not sourced and only sources I can find are of the routine type every professorial sports event gets.
Also nominating
for the same reasons that there are no sources demonstrating enduring notability. Mt king (edits) 20:07, 17 May 2012 (UTC) reply
![]() | If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is
not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has
policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and
consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts:{{subst:
spa|username}} ; suspected
canvassed users: {{subst:
canvassed|username}} ; accounts blocked for
sockpuppetry: {{subst:
csm|username}} or {{subst:
csp|username}} . |
COMMENT Per Ymblanter's suggestion above of taking the broader issue to Village Pump, a quite relevant conversation has started there over issues relevant to this AfD. Participants can voice their questions/concerns about wiki policy there. Thanks. Agent00f ( talk) 18:31, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply
Merge Comment - one thing I do notice from time to time is that in smaller tournaments like this, even though they are absolutely notable and should be kept, the disciplines could easily all fit on one page. The main page is really too short as are the individual singles and doubles articles. I test merged them and then reverted it back Right Here for an example of what it could look like. When the ladies singles and doubles get added it seems like it would still be just fine where it would wind up at 35–40k in size. It just seems to me that it would be better to have one nice sized article rather than several small ones. This won't work with larger tournaments on the tour because of bigger draws and extra prose, but it could work with many. Just my thoughts. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 19:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC) reply