Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2002 Wismilak International – Singles

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 keep. This discussion was open for several weeks, with nobody, including nominator, suggesting outright deletion. If there is further desire for a merge, discussion can occur on the relevant talk pages. (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 22:26, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Wismilak International – Singles

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a Tier III tennis tournament, so this doesn't pass WP:NSPORTSEVENT. I also don't see WP:NEVENT-level coverage of this tournament for it to qualify as notable; it doesn't look like there was sustained coverage nor that the event had a lasting impact. Even if it were notable, it would not be notable separately from the 2002 Wismilak International page. Thus, I propose that this article be made into a redirect to 2002 Wismilak International, where all information in this article could be covered adequately. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 07:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There are singles pages for all other events at Bali, including for 2001 and 2003; I think that this page should be kept. Otherwise you should delete all the other singles events pages at this tournament.Alexxbrookss (talk) 10:23, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument you're making is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The 2001 Wismilak International – Singles page and 2003 Wismilak International – Singles page probably should be redirected as well for similar reasons. However, I'm now somewhat averse to creating the potential for WP:CLUSTERFUCK nominations, so I'd prefer to not lump all non-notable tennis tournaments in Bali together into one AfD. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 19:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Tennis tournament articles have always split off the draws in to separate articles so that they stay within the WP:SIZERULE guidelines. This level of tournament is equivalent to a modern WTA 250 tournament, a level at which WP:NTENNIS presumes notability for all participants, there is no notability issue here (NSPORTSEVENT only applies to individual matches). And finally, redirect is not an appropriate outcome for this AFD; the singles draw is a major part of the event (the other major component is the doubles draw), so at worst this article should be merged in to the parent article (Ideally this would be agreed at an RFC instead of a single AFD, given the large number of pages that would have to be merged). Iffy★Chat -- 21:57, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a number of issues I take with the above:
  1. WP:NTENNIS does not confer notability on any events; events do not inherit their notability just because notable people were there.
  2. If the argument is that participants in an event that would make them presumed notable renders the event itself notable, the argument is less than convincing. This would be akin to saying that every NFL football game is notable because WP:NGRIDIRON confers notability on all people who played in them. It would also be akin to saying that every single tier-1 soccer match is notable because of how WP:NSOCCER confers notability on players who participate. Both of these are pretty clearly rejected by the community as way too much of a stretch of then WP:NSPORTS guideline; I see no reason to treat that differently here.
  3. Holdin objection #2 aside, there's nothing in NTENNIS that actually would confer notability upon all participants in this event; the guideline confers presumed notability on the participants only in the highest-level professional tournaments, while this was a Tier III tennis tournament (Tier I is the highest level). Other tournaments might confer notability only on victors, but surely this would indicate that the tournaments are less likely to be notable than those which confer notability on all participants.
  4. WP:SIZERULE would actually be met even if the entirety of this article were to be merged verbaitm into the 2002 Wismilak International article. Doing so would actually render the merged article to be under 40 Kb. In this case, per WP:SIZERULE Length alone does not justify division.
  5. There's also no explanation above for why this would meet the ordinary event notability guidelines; the critique of the reference WP:NSPORTSEVENT is a red herring.
At the end of the day, I don't see any valid reason to keep above, nor anything that would indicate that a redirect/merge is not feasible. If you'd like to propose a merge, then that could be evaluated in its own regards, but I see no reason to keep this as a separate page. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your 2nd and 3rd points are so completely off the mark that I must correct them. I am not claiming that every tennis match in a top-level event is by itself notable, but that the tournament where the matches are held is. The equivalent for football would be a league article like the 2021–22 EFL Championship, not a specific match in a notability-conferring league (and nobody's seriously contesting the notability of those articles, even at the bottom of whatever level confers notability to participants). Your claim that 2002 WTA Tier III tournaments are not notability conferring is false, the top level of women's tennis is the WTA tour, and in our article for the 2002 tour lists all the tournaments played at this top level (plus some top-level ones organised by the ITF) for that year, the WTA Tier I - V tournaments. WP:NTENNIS also helpfully links to WTA International tournaments to clarify things, which clearly says that WTA Internationals replaced the previous Tier III and Tier IV categories. Iffy★Chat -- 13:42, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:26, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 04:25, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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.