Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1999 Toray Pan Pacific Open

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/redirect. Consensus is to keep the main article and the 2 articles on the main draws, while redirecting the Qualifying articles to the main draw articles where the articles have already been merged. Davewild (talk) 17:07, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Toray Pan Pacific Open

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

I could not find significant coverage of these in reliable sources. Delete per WP:GNG. Author of the pages contested the WP:PROD.

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Strong Keep: Firstly, I am not the author of the main section, I am merely the author of some of the side articles and the person who made the other articles more up to date and detailed. Secondly, I have made my views on this deletion proposal loud and clear in the discussion page. I could paste it here if that would make you feel better, but until I can actually get a reason for deletion that has a bit more common sense, there's little more I can say on the matter. Kapitan110295 (talk) 12:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I could not find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage of the Toray Pan Pacific Open. If you have such sources, please share them. Otherwise these articles fail to pass the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 12:36, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I have said that the reason why you haven't been able to find any significant coverage in reliable source is because that the tournament took place in 1999. However, just because the tournament isn't covered significantly in reliable source doesn't mean it's any the less notable. Just take a look at WP:NTENNIS. It states quite clearly there that tennis figures are presumed notable if they have competed in a WTA tournament. The Toray Pan Pacific Open is one of the most prestiguous WTA touraments. Now, forgive me for using common sense, but I believe that if a player who has partaken in this tournament is presumed notable, doesn't that mean that the tournament itself is notable? Doesn't that make it as notable as the 2011 Toray Pan Pacific Open? I understand that there is a twelve-year gap between the two touraments, but that certainly doesn't mean that one is more notable than the other. Kapitan110295 (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A case should be made for each article as well. Are the Doubles Qualifying rounds notable? I think not. And I could not find any reliable sources for the tournament itself either. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You don't believe the tournament is notable? Here is some new coverage of it, and here is some more. The latter of which states quite clearly that "it is Radwańska's most significant win". This fact of a former and current Top 10 player, I think, does give the tournament quite a bit of notability. As for the Doubles Qualifying not being notable, may I ask why? Is it because they have a different scoring system? Or is it because they aren't used anymore? I understand doubles does have a lot less coverage of singles, but once again the Pan Pacific Open is a major tournament, and every section of it is significant in the WTA Tour. We have singles qualifying articles being created in this year's WTA and ATP Tours, and no one has contested them, so either there has been a major oversight on Wikipedia's tennis editors, or they are considered to be of significant notability. Kapitan110295 (talk) 07:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The two articles you linked to show me that the tournament should be mentioned on Radwanska's article and don't support the tournament itself. I singled out the "Doubles" because it is likely the least notable. I can't speak about the current WTA Tour articles, I have only looked up the ones for 1999. --Odie5533 (talk) 07:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE USE COMMON SENSE! If the tournament wasn't notable, then it would not have been mentioned at all, whether the article was more about the player or not! And I think you should look up the current WTA articles, since as I have said many times, time difference does nothing to notability other than making sources harder to find. Kapitan110295 (talk) 08:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe it necessitates having 5 articles about an otherwise non-notable tournament just because a notable player participated in them. --Odie5533 01:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

You are indicating further and further that you know very little about tennis, and sports in general. I must say that the fact that you nominated a tennis article for deleting without the knowledge does frustrate me. Forgive me if this is rude, but you must see how frustrated I am getting, particuarly with all the work I have done with the tennis articles.

Now, to make my point a little clearer, I would like to say that if Radwańska won an ITF tournament, the ABC would probably not care. However, because she won a NOTABLE tournament, she got mentioned in the ABC. You should also take note that this tournament helped her gain entry to the WTA Tour Championships and the Top 10. Kapitan110295 (talk) 08:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Where do I, the original author of this article and of the singles and doubles articles as well, begin? The reason why this tournament - as well as any others in tennis - are not found in verifiable sources is because, as a rule of thumb, they are not well known. Basic information on modern tournaments can be found on the ATP and WTA websites - look them up - and though detailed histories of tournaments are not available on the open market - there are only a couple of general sources around which cover this sort of area - we do know about older tournaments through the main verifiable source of information for articles such as this one and some of the others you have nominated. This is the main verifiable source used for these articles, and it is mentioned briefly on this webpage about the main verifiable successor to it, The ITF Year.

In further, keep in mind that golf is similar in this regard, the only difference being that no-one has ever written an article about a certain year of a golf tournament, and also that it is very difficult to find detailed books on tennis history, both because they are expensive and because the sort of detail (seemingly) required is rarely seen in them. Totalinarian (talk) 15:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just made a strong argument that the articles fail WP:GNG. Normally you would preface such an argument with the word "Delete" instead of "Strong Keep". You stated,

"they are not well known" "it is mentioned briefly on [...]" "the sort of detail (seemingly) required is rarely seen in [books]"

These are all arguments for deleting the articles per WP:GNG. What about your argument do you think is for keeping the article? --Odie5533 01:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:43, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Totalinarian. This kind of event is often notable, but if coverage is nonexistent, coverage is nonexistent. Nyttend (talk) 00:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~Strong Keep — You know there is a system for mergers instead of deletion. If its factual and not well known (not well known does not equate non notable.) it should be included in wikipedia, however it seems that until it has enough information for its own article it along with the other articles should be merged with Toray Pan Pacific Open Tennis Tournament. Pulmonological (talk) 04:01, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should have reviewed all of the articles before spouting off changed to straight keep. Pulmonological (talk) 04:05, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Even moreso; the entire category seems well placed and notable. Category:Pan Pacific Open Pulmonological (talk) 04:09, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you believe the Doubles Qualifying round of the 1999 Toray Pan Pacific Open is notable enough to warrant an article on wikipedia? And if possible, relate it to established consensus such as WP:GNG? --Odie5533 15:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

As (seemingly) suggested by my previous post, if Odie feels this article should be deleted, then they should go ahead. But they should keep in mind that there are many, many articles which would be considered a breach of WP:GNG if it was strictly upheld - including, for starters, other tennis-related articles, but (probably) including others in other categories - but are retained because it would take a long time to pursue every article that failed GNG. Does Odie agree that this sort of problem can occur elsewhere, but nothing has been done about it yet? Totalinarian (talk) 13:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In further, it was inevitable that this argument for deleting pages of this sort would eventually appear, but if it must be so, it must be so. Totalinarian (talk) 13:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I definitely agree 100% that the problem occurs elsewhere. From sports, video games, companies, films, products, etc. There are a large number of articles in all sections of Wikipedia that are not notable by any standard we have (such as the GNG). By the standard of the GNG, these articles should all be deleted unless special circumstances can be shown. The only reason I have singled out this tennis tournament is because I am only one person and can't look through everything out there. I don't think the Doubles Qualifying round of a tennis tournament held in 1999 meets any standards for notability and is not a special circumstance. --Odie5533 15:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Clear Keep Considering they have all the preceding and successing years, deletion of the 1999 one would leave a confusing gap, I vote keep. – Phoenix B 1of3 (talk) 18:39, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that if all the other pokemon have an article, then these pokemon should too? Sorry, I meant tennis qualifying rounds, not pokemon. --Odie5533 15:11, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Keep 1999 Toray Pan Pacific Open at least. Has anyone on either side of this discussion checked Google News archives from the period for articles on the tournament? I have, and I've found quite a bit of coverage. We have articles on the final, semifinals, quarterfinals, and a little on the second round. I'm not sure how many articles we need to have on one tournament, but it seems clear to me that there's enough coverage to justify the main 1999 tournament article. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 19:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - you have to be kidding right? This was a million dollar tournament played by the highest ranking women in the world. It is absolutely notable by our own tennis notability rules. Even the qualifying is notable in this event. Tier 1... right below the grand slam tournaments in prestige. This is open and shut. There is a tennis project task-force assigned to creating yearly tournament pages and their draws. However, as has been shown in past articles, the qualifying draws by themselves are not notable. They should be retained but placed on the same pages as the main draws. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added the qualifiers to the main pages. I of course did not ask for a deletion of the qualifier pages because they are under afd determination. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 1999 Toray Pan Pacific Open, merge and redirect the others to that. The Steve 01:54, 31 October 2011 (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.