Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lendl–Wilander rivalry

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 no consensus. Courcelles 15:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lendl–Wilander rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 01:06, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:51, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~ Neutral. As it stands, the article is as described, just a meaningless list of match results. However there is evidence that such a rivalry exists and is notable [1] so it may be possible to build a proper article. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:30, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: simply an (unsourced) tabulation of sports results (WP:NOT#STATS, WP:NOT#NEWS, or simply generally WP:IINFO), lacking any WP:SECONDARY source information interpreting or evaluating this "rivalry". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Don't see how this article fits any of the categories under WP:NOTREPOSITORY, i.e., mere collections of external links or Internet directories, mere collections of internal links, mere collections of public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material that are only useful when presented with their original, unmodified wording, or mere collections of photographs or media files. Article needs expansion, but basis for deletion of an article on a seemingly notable rivalry has not been established. Rlendog (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is the total lack of the reliable sources that are necessary to confirm that the rivalry is notable. _wjemather ^bigissue 18:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with prose as was done with the others. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:30, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure, we can do that if it is a notable rivalry. Is is though? To establish that we need some solid evidence. _wjemather ^bigissue 07:51, 17 December 2010 (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.