Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian 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 merge into existing articles. Spinning Spark 03:13, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open

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

This article has almost no information that is not already found on pages like 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles and 2012 Australian Open – Women's Singles. Since there is almost no prose to go with it, this is merely a list of tables, which violates WP:NOTSTATSBOOK. Is an unnecessary content fork, and the few items of useful information can easily be included in the forementioned articles. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

comment - per consensus the day-by-days must be kept or merged into the "main page." Prose can certainly be added as opposed to elimination as the day-by-days of the 2010 Australian Open shows. Unfortunately the 2010 Open is way over-sized since the merge and the day by days should really have been left on their own imho. I don't really care one way or the other about the day-by-days but I do care that this has already been done, discussed and polled in favor of keeping or merging the day-by-day format if it doesn't make the main article too big. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That previous AfD resulted in Merge, showing a clear concensus not to have this as standalone articles. The argument that it cannot be merged because the main article is too big is weak for several reasons: #1: We do not have standalone day-by-day articles for recent French Open , Wimbledon or US Open. Then why are they needed for the Australian Open? #2: The Men's Singles and Women's Singles articles I mentioned are 56kB and 41kB respectively, thus they can easily take in any useful items from this day-by-day. Actually there is 80% overlap between these articles, so an smerge would hardly make them any longer. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But also the very clear consensus was not to delete it. As long as you leave it in it's day to day format it can be merged but it can't be deleted to keep the history intact. We may have a large main article but at least that will satisfy the merge option. And we have a lot of articles for some things that we don't have for others, but I don't know what that has to do with the price of eggs? There can be many reasons why that happens. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:26, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had already requested to not mark the article for deletion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis#Day-By-Day earlier this morning & had clearly said - Since the problem of length and quality surfaced at the main article which was unnecessarily becoming voluminous and lack of ease of reading the article, the need to create a new page for simplicity & better readability was must. Almost, all the conditions of making the article as per wiki norms is meticulously taken care. (The article has a lede, has reliable references, ....). The article tends to focus on pompous information (Seeds Out, Today's tournaments) related to the Grand Slam event catering to sports news in brief. Requesting not to mark the article for deletion as was done for 2011 Australian Open (Day-by-day summaries). This part of article itself should not have been entertained in the main article in the beginning itself & I would than not have created the page. Please also refer WP:DETAIL and WP:TERSE

I do agree with MakeSense64 that there is no prose & Fyunck(click) that Prose can certainly be added .... but I personally feel that such kind of article should not be with a prose since the main idea is to get the information in a summarized form as short and as brief as possible. If the need to add a prose is a necessity than I will surely update the same but the prose would than be nothing other than -

# Eighteenth seed ... defeated sixteenth seed ...

# ...., the biggest upset in the tournament to date.

# ... who lost to ....

# ... who went out to ...

# ... successfully made their way into the semifinals by defeating ...

which has already been taken care in the lede section of 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles

Being a novice, I am not aware whether such articles should be entertained or not but as a WP reader, I may need just a quick summary of the tournament's day-by-day summaries where else in WP are the dates of the 2012 AO tournament mentioned ?

Ninney (talk) 10:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting not to mark an article for deletion is not how WP works. These articles were not kept as standalone articles for AO 2010 and 2011, so then why create one for 2012 against this concensus? There is no any rule that says it has to be merged into main tournament article. In fact, other than the courts on which matches have been played, this article has no information that is not already found in the men's and women's singles articles. And if prose is found to go with it, then it belongs in articles like 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles, which are not too big to be expanded (in fact they also lack sufficient prose) MakeSense64 (talk) 11:13, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that means. We discuss things... and the editors on the talk pages request no rfd's all the time. It's exactly how wiki works. Sure it can be ignored because that's also how wiki works. But wiki mainly works by consensus and consensus has already been made on this subject... "Merge" with main article and do not delete. I guess if we have a 100k main article then so be it, but the info should be retained. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary merge viewing - I added and reverted what the day-by-days will look like added to the main article. It's 93k in size, which is a bit big, and will be larger if/when prose is added to each day. I'm flexible as either separate or with the main.... I just wanted everyone to have a ready view of the landscape. At least with merging it keeps things in one spot though much bigger, however just going to "events" leads us to 15 more branches so I don't see where one more day-by-day branch is a really big deal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hold the same opinion. Agree with you Fyunck(click), BIFURCATE instead of MERGE will be the best solution

Like -- Ninney (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - But why are you trying to merge in the main article? That's obviously not what I am talking about. If there is anything to say about matches, then it should be in the already existing content forks for the men's singles, women's singles, and so on..

Why not take a look at how this is done for other sports events? E.g. the football world cup. We don't find any day-by-day articles for these events, even though you could easily create such articles. We also don't find any match reports or day-by-day in the main article : 2010 FIFA World Cup, only some very brief summaries. The match reports are found in 2010 FIFA World Cup knockout stage. Applying this to Australian Open, we should not have day-by-day standalone articles, and match reports or day-by-day do not belong in the main article either. As I mentioned in my deletion rationale, any match reports belong in 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles and 2012 Australian Open – Women's Singles, which can easily contain that information. But right now Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open is mainly a list of match results which are already in the other articles, just arranged differently. That's why we can delete Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open because it is redundant. What do you want to keep from this article that is not already elsewhere? MakeSense64 (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) The day by days work fine in 2009 Australian Open, and 2) I'm following an already made consensus to merge with the main article. It isn't a question of where to merge since that was already decided by consensus and agreed to by an administrator. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - Concensus can change. And if there is a better place to put this information, then we should do it. The fact remains that this day-by-day has only match results, which are already easily found in our other 19 content forks for this year's Australian Open. What are you going to merge from this article that is not already covered elsewhere? MakeSense64 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True consensus can change but until it does we follow it. We just don't arbitrarily decide which consensus to follow and which to ignore. This was brought up, talked about and decided upon formally not very long ago. I come out on losing sides of consensus debates about half the time here. I may or may not be happy about a decision but when it's finally settled I follow it to keep everyone on the straight and narrow, and to move on to other things that need doing. We can move the mostly complete day-by-day to the main article (which I did for comparison) but we can't strip it and send it piecemeal to different locations. We can always dump the other content forks if they have the same info. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is a couple of big differences. The day-by-day section in 2009 Australian Open has a lot of sourced prose describing the matches. The Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open is mainly a list of match results sorted by day, but little or no prose to go with it. These match results are already covered in other articles. So there is no reason to keep this article.

I also disagree that these day-by-day sections cannot be stripped and sent to different articles. Why not? It is mainly the men's singles and women's singles matches (and a few doubles matches in the later rounds). Sorting them out by tournament and adding them in the tournament content fork where they belong (men's singles, women's singles,..) would make it much more clear and readable. Now it is just just a mish-mash. Description of women's matches can logically go into 2012 Australian Open – Women's Singles, coverage of men's matches can be put into 2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles.. that's the kind of information that is currently lacking in these articles. Why is the project Tennis insisting on creating a 20th content fork (or a day-by-day section in the main article) when the other 19 content forks for the Australian Open have barely any sourced prose to go with its long lists of stats and results? MakeSense64 (talk) 09:29, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1) just because it's short of the prose of the 2009 article doesn't mean we delete it...we make it better. Just like when a player becomes notable if they only have one word in the article we don't delete that either... we improve it. 2) As I had said before the-day-by-days cannot be stripped piecemeal because it's against a ruling already made by an administrator. And it's not a mish-mash, it's a day-by-day look in an all-encompassing way of events that transpired... one day at a time. When we have a list of all the 4 Major winners in one chart that is also information that is already available at wikipedia, now just put into one place. The day-by-days are like that. I look at this as if my wife has just brought home a new sofa she loves and I have to place it somewhere. It doesn't matter if I like it or not, and I'm not going to take a reciprocating saw and start cutting it apart to make it fit better. My option is to find the best place for it as is, maybe add some pillows or quilts to make it look better, or hide it in a corner, but it needs a room to go in. That's how I look at this. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I got an idea if it would work, you all tell me! I think we should template each day or all the days, which I would let you all decide what to do. If we template them se could make a navbox of them to allow people to get through the days and a category to boot, it would allow for seemless navigation or viewing.HotHat (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Example: Template:2012 Australian Open Day 1 HotHat (talk) 01:50, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have posted and example on the talk page to see if it work, which it did! Now, tell me what is you all's opinion on the matter.HotHat (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

At first TEMPLATE seems to be a nice alternative but its one and the same thing as creating a new page/ new article. If one template is used then its OK but if new template for each day is created then 1 grand slam has 15-20 templates and the annual 4 grand slams will have 60 - 80 templates only in 1 year. Why create 'n' number of templates for each tournament ? Also, Templates usually contains repetitive material that might need to show up on any number of articles or pages. They are commonly used for boilerplate msg, std warnings or notices, infoboxes, nav. boxes & similar purposes. Sorry ! but Templates cannot be used for day-by-day summaries.

-- Ninney (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from me. Template doesn't seems to be a good solution neither. We must get rid of these kind of statistics anyway from tennis articles. If I were a casual internet user and would come across an article with such a title as "Day by Day summary" I would like to see prose about the events. Like a story told for each day. Not a table of flags and seeds. These articles should stand on their own, but this way they simply don't. Lajbi ^{Holla @ me • CP} 09:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP and MERGE: These should not have ever been created into separate content forking, which the creation of this is a POVFORK to highlight these as being so-called news and INDISCRIMINATE. These are intricle parts of the main article, and without them the 2012 Australian Open has virtually no context and plot lines to the event, such as the 2009 Australian Open has with the inclusion of the day-by-day aricles. I think we use SIZERULE to much, which when a Grand Slam deserves the extra information, we can go over the limit, which only occurs four times a year. By the way, Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia clearly states this is a general encyclopedia at the same time a specialized one, so we can have them because we can create a tennis encyclopdia inside Wikipedia with more detailed content including these Wikitable. I agree these articles don't stand on their own, nor should they have ever been created. So, I say keep the information and merge it back onto the main article because we have had four years of consensus for them on the main grand slam tournament articles just go look.HotHat (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - But why this idea of merging it in the main article, as if that is the only possibility? The 2012 Australian Open has 19 content forks, as you can see here: [1]. And most of these content forks have no prose whatsoever, so they would improve if we added the properly sourced match reports there.

But somehow our editors found no way to include the match or day-by-day information into these 19 articles, and created a 20th content fork: Day-by-day summaries of the 2012 Australian Open. And if we look at that article it is mainly a list of results , which are already in these 19 other content forks. So we can delete it. MakeSense64 (talk) 08:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They cannot clearly be deleted because it would end the plot of the tornament and would not tell the full story without them or their inclusion. I would like all of you yelling prose, prose, prose to go and actually write some for once on a tennis article if it is that important to you look at Wikipedia law of complaints at the bottom of Raul's Laws of Wikipedia. This is my belief and what I have strived for if I want something done do it myself instead of complaining about it. By the way, these would fit on none of the articles, which are mostly draw articles, and these have different matches from varying draws. It must go back on the main article and it must get talked about on the Talk:2012 Australian Open article, not on some random deletion discussion. This deletion discussion sets a various dangerous president for wikipedia at-large not just with respect to these articles. It says that if you want any part of an article deleted make it into some sub article and advocate for the deletion of it. See it would impact more than just tennis!HotHat (talk) 03:17, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought of summarizing the discussion -

USER	PAGE	PROSE	MERGE
MakeSense64	Page to be deleted	Prose needed	Merge
Fyunck(click)	Page needed	Prose can certainly be added	Merge (if size permits)
Ninney	Page needed	Prose not needed	Merge not a solution
HotHat	Page needed	Prose to be written immediately	Merge
Lajbi	Page to be deleted	Prose needed	??? Merge ???

Thanks HotHat ! I will certainly start writing the prose - Ninney (talk) 12:54, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ideally you'd want it to look like 2009 Australian Open though I would have only about 2/3 as much prose as that article has now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That doesn't look like a good summary. So far I have seen nobody arguing the case that this page (article) is needed. Because in the past such day-by-day articles have not been kept as standalone. And we also don't have any "day-by-day" articles in other sports.

A few people say merge, but so far they fail to say what they want to merge from this article. It is mainly a list of results, which are already found in other articles.

And if we are going to write prose about the matches then it should be added in our existing articles about the men's and women's singles tournament, because right now these articles are also lacking prose to go with the tables. This fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.

See for example [[2012 Australian Open – Men's Singles]]. That's where we need the prose about the matches if we are going to have any. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I must counter with, these day-by-day synopsis are in line with NOTSTATSBOOK rule No. 1 Summary-only descriptions of works because it is in fact a listing of matches on the three biggest main courts as a summary of the day's matches at the event. So, it is a summary and not in excess, which would be to list all matches on all courts. Under No. 3, it says "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." This means we need to add prose and not delete them, just because things are not up to code does not mean we wholesale delete, what it in fact means is we tag them and hope some editor comes along to make it a better place. So, the article is a summary of the day's goings on at the event and all that must be add not by me but by whomever because I don't particularly care about prose but you all do, is to add prose into the article in each section. Or back on the main page, where these articles should be in the first place not on some NPOV Content forking article becuase of over emphasis on just the SIZERULE policy.HotHat (talk) 14:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - So it's really looking like merge as per Ninneys chart and the fact this was "afd discussed" just last season with the result to merge (or keep if no merge) as determined by an administrator. So we already had the proper go-ahead to merge from last time. I just merged the info but did not add the proper merge tags yet nor blank the day-by-day with a redirect. Of course this can be undone but I wanted to get this moving along so we can work on other things. This day-by-day article title must remain as a re-direct for a merge. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged if that is possible, because the draw pages don't actually show which matches were played on each day, rain delays etc. If references are found and prose is written, it may need to be a standalone article for size reasons. 03 md 04:27, 3 February 2012 (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.