This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2013 October 12. The result of the deletion review was the closure was endorsed. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and AzarenkaâSharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've also had deletions for AgassiâRafter rivalry, DavenportâV. Williams rivalry, DavenportâHingis rivalry, BeckerâSampras rivalry, FedererâHewitt rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. One can always find a few news sources for two tennis players describing a rivalry... it's easy, but it's not encyclopedic.
One would assume that once or twice a decade a special rivalry will come about that lifts a sport to amazing media coverage...LaverâRosewall, BorgâMcEnroe, SamprasâAgassi, Navratilova-Evert, FedererâNadal, and several others. But just because they are the hot item right now doesn't give Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and disproportional piece of the rivalry article pie. We have FedererâMurray here, but we also have FedererâDjokovic Rivalry, DjokovicâMurray rivalry, NadalâDjokovic rivalry, a proposed NadalâMurray rivalry. Where does it end? This is the nature of tennis throughout it's history. Do we create rivalry pages for any players that play 10x? Anyone that wins a major and plays another that has won a Major gets a rivalry page? I would say no. We have an article here on wikipdedia that lists rivalries where sheer number of times met at important tournaments is the criteria. It's at List of tennis rivalries. Very few require stand alone articles but it gives readers a chance to see a list of tennis personalities who played each other a lot. That's all we really need here. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Theworm777 ( talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
As I wrote before, I created the page and obviously I'm going to defend it. You conceded that Federer-Nadal and Federer-Djokovic justify rivalry pages, but Federer-Murray have played in 3 Grandslam finals and Federer-Djokovic only one. Another reason you gave to delete was that Federer-Djokovic was a "proper" rivalry because they have played in "a ton of finals", in reality Federer-Djokovic have played in the exact same number (8 finals) as Federer-Murray. So how is it that you can claim which rivalry pages are relevant and which are not. Also Federer and Murray are currently #2 and #3 in the world and conceivably will play many more "important" matches in the future. Also how can you delete Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray rivalry pages which are about some of the greatest rivalries in tennis history while not deleting stupid rivalry pages like Serena Williams-Hingis (which has barely any content on it compared to the work I did creating this page) or Serena Williams-Henin? This is a golden age of tennis and rivalry pages concerning Federer (who is near universally acclaimed as the greatest tennis player of all-time), Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are not part of the meaningless rivalry epidemic of mediocre players that will be forgotten about in several years. These are historically relevant rivalries of these four specific players and should be protected. This is not a leather bound encyclopedia and has room for these rivalry pages of these four players who are single-handedly making tennis more relevant than it has been in 40 years. Please do not delete this page, smaller and insignificant rivalries are OK but not Federer's rivalries with Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray. Praline97 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2013 (PST)
There is a very heavy slice of WP:RECENTISM running through this entire concept. I tracked back and had a look at the base article of all these rivalry article - List of tennis rivalries. There is NO, none at all, substantiation of the criteria for a Tennis rivalry.
Why? Such a narrowly defined criteria should have the backing of outside sourcing.
Again, why? The majors have come to assume an incresingly higher standard over other tournaments, but the ranking mentioned above is not drawn exclusively from majors results.
Again, why? The basis of a rivalry should be its notability, not its statistics. From Wikitionary The relationship between two or more rivals who regularly compete with each other. [1] It makes no mention of a rivalry being bound by any form of statistics except the number of participants. In summary - if we can't even successfully define a tennis rivalry, then these definitions should not be used as a basis for creating further rivalry articles. I would like to see the List of Tennis rivalries deleted, as it fails GNG by its own definitions. -- Falcadore ( talk) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply
This discussion was subject to a
deletion review on 2013 October 12. The result of the deletion review was the closure was endorsed. For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review. |
The result was delete. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:07, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and AzarenkaâSharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've also had deletions for AgassiâRafter rivalry, DavenportâV. Williams rivalry, DavenportâHingis rivalry, BeckerâSampras rivalry, FedererâHewitt rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. One can always find a few news sources for two tennis players describing a rivalry... it's easy, but it's not encyclopedic.
One would assume that once or twice a decade a special rivalry will come about that lifts a sport to amazing media coverage...LaverâRosewall, BorgâMcEnroe, SamprasâAgassi, Navratilova-Evert, FedererâNadal, and several others. But just because they are the hot item right now doesn't give Federer/Nadal/Djokovic/Murray and disproportional piece of the rivalry article pie. We have FedererâMurray here, but we also have FedererâDjokovic Rivalry, DjokovicâMurray rivalry, NadalâDjokovic rivalry, a proposed NadalâMurray rivalry. Where does it end? This is the nature of tennis throughout it's history. Do we create rivalry pages for any players that play 10x? Anyone that wins a major and plays another that has won a Major gets a rivalry page? I would say no. We have an article here on wikipdedia that lists rivalries where sheer number of times met at important tournaments is the criteria. It's at List of tennis rivalries. Very few require stand alone articles but it gives readers a chance to see a list of tennis personalities who played each other a lot. That's all we really need here. Fyunck(click) ( talk) 00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation. Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article's subject can be notable if such sources exist, even if they have not been named yet. However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. If it is likely that significant coverage in independent sources can be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. Theworm777 ( talk) 04:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC) reply
As I wrote before, I created the page and obviously I'm going to defend it. You conceded that Federer-Nadal and Federer-Djokovic justify rivalry pages, but Federer-Murray have played in 3 Grandslam finals and Federer-Djokovic only one. Another reason you gave to delete was that Federer-Djokovic was a "proper" rivalry because they have played in "a ton of finals", in reality Federer-Djokovic have played in the exact same number (8 finals) as Federer-Murray. So how is it that you can claim which rivalry pages are relevant and which are not. Also Federer and Murray are currently #2 and #3 in the world and conceivably will play many more "important" matches in the future. Also how can you delete Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray rivalry pages which are about some of the greatest rivalries in tennis history while not deleting stupid rivalry pages like Serena Williams-Hingis (which has barely any content on it compared to the work I did creating this page) or Serena Williams-Henin? This is a golden age of tennis and rivalry pages concerning Federer (who is near universally acclaimed as the greatest tennis player of all-time), Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray are not part of the meaningless rivalry epidemic of mediocre players that will be forgotten about in several years. These are historically relevant rivalries of these four specific players and should be protected. This is not a leather bound encyclopedia and has room for these rivalry pages of these four players who are single-handedly making tennis more relevant than it has been in 40 years. Please do not delete this page, smaller and insignificant rivalries are OK but not Federer's rivalries with Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray. Praline97 (talk) 00:53, 23 February 2013 (PST)
There is a very heavy slice of WP:RECENTISM running through this entire concept. I tracked back and had a look at the base article of all these rivalry article - List of tennis rivalries. There is NO, none at all, substantiation of the criteria for a Tennis rivalry.
Why? Such a narrowly defined criteria should have the backing of outside sourcing.
Again, why? The majors have come to assume an incresingly higher standard over other tournaments, but the ranking mentioned above is not drawn exclusively from majors results.
Again, why? The basis of a rivalry should be its notability, not its statistics. From Wikitionary The relationship between two or more rivals who regularly compete with each other. [1] It makes no mention of a rivalry being bound by any form of statistics except the number of participants. In summary - if we can't even successfully define a tennis rivalry, then these definitions should not be used as a basis for creating further rivalry articles. I would like to see the List of Tennis rivalries deleted, as it fails GNG by its own definitions. -- Falcadore ( talk) 13:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC) reply