Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 WTA Finals – Doubles

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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mandraketennis (talk) 19:40, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 WTA Finals – Doubles

[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 page is lacking its main and essential link to the double draw on which it's all based. Since there's no way to verify the draw upon which this page is based, as stated by Wikipedia Verifiability page "content without any reliable source to verify it may be removed", and since after checking i didn't find myself any source of the draw, this page should be removed, as in fact stated in the Wikipedia policies cited above. Mandraketennis (talk) 20:26, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Huge Keep - as mentioned for other pages, you have no reason at all to delete the page. There is a reference for the draw, it is a PDF link from the WTA to the draw.
Huge Keep - this editor has added this tag to several tennis articles out of spite and has been reported. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP; if there is good, eventually sourceable, content in the article, it should be developed and improved, not deleted. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 21:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep - per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Notable article. This seems simply disruptive behavior from the proposer after not getting their way in a recent discussion.--Wolbo (talk) 21:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Huge keep This tennis draw subpage is well sourced and therefore should no way at all be nominated for deletion. This is ludicrous behavior. Qwerty284651 (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per those above. Proposer needs to read WP:BEFORE. Sod25 (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

in fact, did read the whole page "article for deletion" and related pages before submitting this and the other 3 articles. At point 2 it's enlisted the reasons to put an article up for deletion, and i quote, "The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)." So, while ALL the USERS above have read only the first mentioned point Notability, i have read all the 4 points, and found that 2 of them, verifiability and reliable sources, are not met in this article. The general consensus made-up above is apparently built on a false premise, that article deletion should be waged ONLY against notability, while the WP:BEFORE page clearly states that it is one of four. I hope every future comment will adhere to what is written in the guidelines of Wikipedia and not to some sort of agreement among editors, if not to general laziness to stop at the first mentioned reason mentioned for deleting articles. I really hope that is not the case, because i cannot imagine what the "internal" consensum could have reduced the other main guidelines, instead of applying what is clearly stated in there.I would also like to point out that user @spiderone made a suspicious number of cross-posting, 3 in a minute, which could be possibly considered canvassing, and the two users above @wolbo and @fyunck could be maybe considered as vote-stacking, since they already undid some of my editings and were against a recent proposal of mine, @fyunck in particular was duly present in that previous discussion raising constantly arguments against it and mischaracterizing the proposal, so for sure they were not "a priori" in favor of anything coming from me. While writing otherwise in here, that the article had good coverage.. is notable and so on, the 2 users above @wolbo and @fyunck have been searched for better links, recognizing that that was a big blunder, ending up uploading a link for the single draw which i checked and in fact offers the Draw but only for semifinals and Finals, that is less than half of the tournament draw. REcognizing that was an improvement respect the absent previous link i uploaded the link with the correct caption "semi and finals draw", which was undid and changed to "Draw". It's still a link to a very partial draw which cannot resolve the issue here, so much so that none of the editors above in favor of keeping the article has linked the change to me asking to retreat this AfdMandraketennis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article has verifiable and reliable sources. And it had so from the very beginning.M9155 (talk) 10:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@M9155 If the links were good from the start then editors shoudn't have rushed to find new ones, as revision history clearly shows. And that link is, again, about less than half of the draw, That is it's partial and its state is not clearly showed in the name of the link, throwing users off, and making Wikipedia looking an unrealiable source with botched solutions.Mandraketennis (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw I am still not convinced the official draw, now available in pdf file, is up to the standard of usual wta tournaments' draws, but seeing the effort and especially the work on the wta finals page on wiki to improve this bad template by inserting the score directly into it, i've decided to acknowledge all this efforts and to retreat the deletion.Mandraketennis (talk) 10:26, 15 November 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.