Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Internazionali Femminili di Tennis

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 delete. Fails WP:TENNIS guidelines for inclusion of ITF events. Krakatoa Katie 09:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

2011 Internazionali Femminili di Tennis

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

This is a small $25000 ITF tournament, so doesn't meet the tournament notability guidelines used by Wikiproject Tennis, see: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines.

I am also nominating the following related pages because [content forks of the main article]:

2011 Internazionali Femminili di Tennis – Doubles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 12:59, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:35, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agreed. A tiny ITF tourney that is not notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the $35,000 threshold in Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability. Bgwhite (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is a contested ProD. Just one of the 40+ such articles I prodded recently. Clearly fails NTENNIS guidelines. I am willing to change my mind if anybody can bring independent reliable 3rd party sources that show this event qualifies via WP:GNG. The mentioned discussion on WP:TENNIS is one I have started to address the problem of these sprawling $25k ITF tournament articles (which always come with two content forks for the singles and doubles draws). There is no discussion about changing the guidelines, so it is not a reason to wait and keep these articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:04, 30 December 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.