The result was no consensus defaulting to keep.
The only policy that has come into play here is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. That has been significantly questioned as a policy reason requiring deletion here (I refer in particular to Lear's Fool's comments). In particular, those citing the policy have not demonstrated that, even if these articles involve excessive listings of statistics, that cannot be fixed by editing the articles. The valid counter-argument in this debate has been that because of the very high notability of the subjects there are sufficient sources to make these articles much more than collections of statistics. Without any policy reason that compels deletion, the retention of these articles is an editorial judgement: are these articles appropriate means of presenting content about the subjects' careers? On that question of judgement there is nothing remotely approaching a consensus either way here. Mkativerata ( talk) 06:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this and a number of other similar articles about Roger Federer per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsey Vonn in 2010, which I had nominated previously. The argument I made there applies equally to these articles about Nadal and Federer. If there are any other "Person X in Year Y" articles I think they should be added to this nomination, but these are the only ones I found. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I bet most of you opposing this have a problem with the titles rather than most of the content and context of these articles. I would suggest they all be retitled to say ex. Roger Federer's 2010 tennis season or Rafael Nadal's 2010 tennis season, instead of just a blanket Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal in 2010. This is a compromise on my part as a fig leaf to the opposing side. BLUE DOG TN 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply
The result was no consensus defaulting to keep.
The only policy that has come into play here is WP:INDISCRIMINATE. That has been significantly questioned as a policy reason requiring deletion here (I refer in particular to Lear's Fool's comments). In particular, those citing the policy have not demonstrated that, even if these articles involve excessive listings of statistics, that cannot be fixed by editing the articles. The valid counter-argument in this debate has been that because of the very high notability of the subjects there are sufficient sources to make these articles much more than collections of statistics. Without any policy reason that compels deletion, the retention of these articles is an editorial judgement: are these articles appropriate means of presenting content about the subjects' careers? On that question of judgement there is nothing remotely approaching a consensus either way here. Mkativerata ( talk) 06:30, 1 December 2010 (UTC) reply
I'm nominating this and a number of other similar articles about Roger Federer per the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lindsey Vonn in 2010, which I had nominated previously. The argument I made there applies equally to these articles about Nadal and Federer. If there are any other "Person X in Year Y" articles I think they should be added to this nomination, but these are the only ones I found. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
-- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:43, 21 November 2010 (UTC) reply
I bet most of you opposing this have a problem with the titles rather than most of the content and context of these articles. I would suggest they all be retitled to say ex. Roger Federer's 2010 tennis season or Rafael Nadal's 2010 tennis season, instead of just a blanket Roger Federer or Rafael Nadal in 2010. This is a compromise on my part as a fig leaf to the opposing side. BLUE DOG TN 23:22, 27 November 2010 (UTC) reply