Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roger Federer in 2011

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. CBD 16:31, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Federer in 2011

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

This is a bundled nomination of all Roger Federer in year articles. These articles present game, set, and match statistics in excessive detail. Additionally, outside of the small number of articles created in this format, the community has generally not considered it necessary nor appropriate to regard athletes' year-by-year performances in this manner, even for truly record-setting examples like Babe Ruth in 1927, much less for every year in a notable athlete's career. The first of these articles created for another tennis player was just deleted on these grounds. Serpent's Choice (talk) 13:32, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Years and years of consensus has been achieved here and yes i know tennis on wiki is incredibley indecisive and bickers alot but I think this would be a waste to delete it. Good twins (talk) 23:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all after merging any pertinent information to Roger Federer. Seems to be undue weight. Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — -- Cirt (talk) 09:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep' There are enough third party reliable sources to pass GNG. Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – These articles have been around for quite a while, and I see no reason to delete. The articles meet WP:GNG, have reliable sources, and are necessary for reference. The articles are not excessively detailed in statistics and such, they only list the games that Federer has played and their results. Of course, some of the information can be toned down a little to where only the essential details of his year-by-year results remain, and that can be done in time. But, there is no detail on games (like number of aces, serve percentage, return percentage, unforced errors, etc.) that would obviously be excessive. These articles can be improved per WP:NOT#STATS so that they are acceptable. And honestly, there is no real rush to delete these articles, as all they need is improvement. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at this discussion on the same sort Rafael Nadal in 2010.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 20:28, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the same reasons I stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafael Nadal in 2010 where the first 8 years were nominated with no consensus. Federer won the Laureus World Sports Award for Sportsman of the Year in four of the nominated years. Babe Ruth played a team sport. We have 1927 New York Yankees season and 110 other seasons in Category:New York Yankees seasons. PrimeHunter (talk) 20:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

not sure – These article being around for awhile means little to me. I admit that there is a wealth of info and that the sources are very reliable. GNG says "topic has received significant coverage." Roger Federer fits GNG... not his junior years. I don't see the press talking in detail about every tournament Roger played in 2003. When you take all these year by year things as a whole it starts to look like someone is writing a book about the history of Roger Federer here on wikipedia. Things to think about while making a decision here: We have detailed info about the high and low temperatures and fog in Santa Monica, day by day, hour by hour and year by year. Should that be part of Wikipedia? Also, Federer has been the 'Man' for the last half decade but there are plenty of other players in the past who would warrant the same treatment... Fred Perry, Molla Mallory, Anthony Wilding, Blanche Hillyard, Margaret Court, Pancho Gonzales, etc... Are we prepared to have year by year itineraries of these folks as well? Because I might write them as long as the floodgates are open. I do tend to like things tighter from an information standpoint but some of these these articles are on the cusp at best. Maybe... maybe when a player is number one he could have a yearly breakdown page but Roger wasn't number one in 2003 or 2010, and having a separate Roger Federer junior page is way out there in non-notability-land imho. So in looking at it, from my vantage point, we have some iffy pages and some non-notable trivia pages. I know people get very attached to articles they've worked on (self included) and my "not sure" isn't a deciding vote here. I just want everyone to think this through as far as consequences when we look back 5 years from now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as it clearly passes GNG, and if the information was to be merged into the main article it would be stupidly large. This information is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, and this format is the only way it realistically can be. Sellyme^Talk 03:17, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as well per Sellyme -- his main article would be ridiculously huge; also, the articles are sourced and there are enough third party reliable sources to pass GNG as stated above. on camera^(t) 04:32, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete Junior years Even though these articles present in excessive detail, it doesn't mean they are unfixable. Clearly, they can easily meet GNG criteria. Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 is a similar article but featured. Soewinhan (talk) 16:56, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that Roger Federer Junior years can "easily meet" GNG. That is simply trivia in an encyclopedia and sets a dangerous precedent for an influx of junior year articles for 100's of players. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:13, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I overlooked these articles. WP:NTENNIS indicates that juniors year won't meet GNG. But starting from Early Career article, the rest can meet GNG because he has already been playing in famed tournaments as detailed in WP:NTENNIS. Soewinhan (talk) 14:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is why does Roger Federer merit these separate articles? Is it because he was number one in those years? Obviously not in all of them. Is it because he was number one for several years and therefore "all" his playing years become noteworthy? Djokavik in 2011 was deemed deletable so what makes "Roger Federer's early career" keep-able in comparison? I'm trying to get a handle on why we wouldn't have an article on say... "Leyton Hewitt in 2009" or "Andy Roddick in 2010?" Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that Federer merits these articles not because he was number one in those years (which he was not in all), but because he is regarded as one of the best, if not the best, players of the sport. I would also argue that players who are generally considered to have a major influence on the development of tennis (which would include folks like Federer, Sampras, Connors, Borg, Lendl, John McEnroe, Laver, etc.) would merit articles covering as much depth of their careers as these articles cover Federer's career with. This guideline would be satisfactory to stop the creation of countless articles of this sort on less-renowned tennis players. Of course, there would have to be some sort of consensus at WP:TENNIS as to which players would be considered to have a major influence on the development of tennis, but that should bring about no major controversy. Prayerfortheworld (talk) 00:16, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that Federer from 2003 onwards merits these articles, maybe not his junior years or early career because it may or may not pass the noteworthy aspect for those two articles. The 2003 season was his first slam year, which facilitated him becoming number one in 2004 after the Australian Open. I would say Djokovic deserves to have two articles made for his 2008 and 2011 seasons because he won slams in those years. The standard needs to be if you rise to or are number one in that year and/or win a slam in a year you should be able to make a season article on wikipedia for that player, which would be logical since sizing requirements.SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 00:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's a lot of articles I would not agree with if I start thinking about it. And I'll bet the players needed to pass muster will create more controversy than one thinks. I can think of a couple dozen right off the top of my head (that's like 200-250 articles needed) and we if we use SWWWWWH's criteria there would be 100's of players and therefore thousands of year by year articles. It looks like all the Federer articles will pass muster here so in the coming months and years it will interesting to see what crop has sprung from this seeding and whether the wiki tennis community will become hypocritical when looking at great players from earlier eras. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:09, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what do you think about 2010 Detroit Lions season which all team sports seems to have a people generally accept them. In tennis, we do not have teams, but players and they have seasons. So, you have to answer my question what's the difference between individuals having seasons and teams?SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow? (talk) 01:17, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is true and a good point. But each member of the Detroit Lions doesn't have a year by year (or shouldn't imho). Nor do we have an article for each game of the Detroit Lions season from 1968. We instead have tournaments as our "teams" which we highly detail every single year. Heck a day-by-day article of a particular tournament is like having and inning-by-inning article in baseball or a quarter-by-quarter article in football. And we don't have an article like "Jerry Rice and his Pop Warner days." (God or at least I hope we don't). Teams and individuals are very different and while there are some correlations there are also big differences. The sad part is you chose the Detroit Lions... sort of our equivalent to Anna Kournikova (except not as good looking) :-). Every year I hope will be different for old Detroit but they continue to suck. Oh well that's another topic :-) Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SaysWhoWhatWhenWhereWhyHow that any singles player deserves a season article for GS wins and world #1 rankings, but no doubles player merits a season article. Sellyme^Talk

And just so we are clear. Are you also suggesting that, like Federer, if player X wins a Major in 2012 after having been on the tour awhile, we should also create an article for player X in 2011, player X in 2010, player X in 2009, player X the high school years, etc? And on the flip side we have had doubles teams win the coveted Grand Slam and been number one for several years. Surly they deserve year by year articles? I see no way that Federer deserves year by year articles and a doubles team like Navratilova/Shriver does not. There would need to be "Navratilova–Shriver doubles in 1981", "Navratilova–Shriver doubles in 1982", "Navratilova–Shriver doubles in 1983", etc... we could list them on the tennisproject to-do-list page. As I said from the beginning a couple of those Federer pages are iffy and some are quite out there... but a couple of them are simply trivia that are not notable and they really open the dam for a potential flood. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:37, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that for the first year they hit #1 or win a GS and every year forwards should get an article, whereas anything before that should be xxxxx xxxxxxxxx's early career. With regards to doubles teams, I agree that some do deserve season articles, but my wording was horrific. In my opinion, doubles players need to achieve more to merit season articles.

How about if every player with an ATP World Tour/WTA Tour title win gets a xxxxx xxxxxxxxx's career record article encompassing full detail of every match they've played, with separation for any with significant achievements? I mean, this information will be widely sourced in any cases post-1980, and there's no real reason not to have them. Okay, I'm being very inclusive here, but really, it's information worth having. (See, this is why I support article sub-pages to expand on article information without being bloated) Sellyme^Talk 11:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I simply disagree here with this being way too exclusive. In fact it won't work because "Novak Djokovic in 2011" has already been shown to be unworthy of wikipedia. And a career record for someone who wins a single tier3 event? Wow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with Sellyme. For every period of time which meet GNS, there should be nothing preventing from creating an article here provided that new articles should not be redundant and are simply content forking of larger article which size is limited by WP:AS. Let's say for example, if one wants to create an article about Roger Federer in 2010 January (which meets GNS because he won Austria Open), then Roger Federer in 2010 must be oversized to the point that it clearly needs to be forked. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. So, there is virtually no limits of depth in coverage. Correct me if anyone feels anything wrong about this. Soewinhan (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my goodness! Now we are talking about monthly pages??? I better get my scuba gear ready. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think monthly pages are a bit overboard, because yearly pages are highly unlikely to need to be split into multiple articles in and of themselves. And Fyunck, I don't see why a simple list of results for a player of title calibre is that overboard. Maybe if it (the requirements) was/were upped to ATP World Tour 500 or above? Sellyme^Talk 00:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If all someone has won is a tier3 or tier2 event their charts are gonna be mighty small to begin with... that should fit on a single page under their name. Sorry but I don't think the originators of wikipedia wanted it become a trivia outlet... I know I don't want it to be. But it appears I'm way in the minority on all things Roger Federer. That's ok though because most of us agree on most things so we're bound to disagree on occasion. This is one of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you support every single match a player has been in to be listed on their main article? A lot of player articles are "too large" already. (Another reason I support sub-pages for article usage) Sellyme^Talk 05:29, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not. I'm saying every match a player has been in their entire career is useless trivia that doesn't belong here. That would belong in a book specifically about that player or perhaps the ATP/WTA archives of trivia. A player who wins a single tier 3 event in his or her career should have a single page that everything needed should fit. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, not quite. See, we're talking only about ATP World Tour matches (Or the WTA equivalent). Now, participating in one of these matches qualifies a tennis played for an article. So how is it "useless trivia"? Look at it this way: Sure, it may be more suited in a book about that player or the WTA/ATP archives, but why not have it here as well, so people don't have to change sites? It's factual, notable, and informative, so it meets all criteria of an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is rapidly arriving at a point where we need to decide whether to expand our horizons or keep concentrated on our standards now. I for one want Wikipedia to keep growing, until it can be used as a reference (poor wording, but you get the point) for almost anything, and although this information may seem trivial, that doesn't mean it isn't useful to the readers. If we look at the (admittedly vague) policies for article guidelines in general, it says to avoid things like Jane Smith's waffle breakfast of January 24, 1998, but it doesn't say why. Common sense will tell you that it's because (to be blunt), no-one gives a rat's ass about that (With the possible exception of Jane Smith). Now, it's obvious that a large amount of people would be interested in Federer's career record (Especially with the nifty coloured W/L columns to have a graphical representation of his form), so I honestly do not see a reason not to include it.

Don't take this as any kind of debate, but I really strongly feel that Wikipedia needs to broaden its horizons and attempt to grow continuously, not just slow down and become stagnant. This would be the first step. /rant Sellyme^Talk 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say a "single page" on a player who has won a low level atp tourney is trivia. Heck they get an article a few paragraphs and charts. But that should be enough. And we only agree that their entire record is factual...it is not notable. Federer's career achievements are fine too. But, using your words, I don't think many people give a rats ass about the fact Roger is 1-0 against Julian Reister or every match he played as a junior. I also don't like seeing % used in most charts. That dumbs down our readers too much since it's already in the chart if they do some simple math. But that's another story. I think we've used enough bandwidth here so that everyone knows where we stand and why. We are not going to change each others minds on this item.

You're missing the point. I actually support the deletion of Federer's juniors page. It's ATP World Tour matches that I think aren't "useless trivia", and ATP World Tour matches that people will be interested in. And I, for one, went "Oh cool, Reister made the third round of a GS. Not bad for world number 165."

I'll be honest. I'm not too keen to create new articles about each individual season, but I think it has to (or at least should)be somewhere. I'd much prefer them to be in a format such as Roger Federer/2010 season, but as that is never going to happen and including it in the main article is just ludicrous, this is the best option. Sellyme^Talk 09:11, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am not talking about creating month pages. There won't be substantial contents to do so. I was referring to a general case only when yearly pages are oversized. Soewinhan (talk) 05:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This will be near impossible until we reach a point where every venue for a tournament has a large enough grounds that they can go through a round every day, thus allowing 8 tournaments a month as opposed to four. If we were to have an article for just the four tournaments a month a player can participate in (Which is normally only 2, at best 3, due to fatigue issues), then each match would have to have an in-depth report, which would be extending GNG to the extreme. Even at 8 enter-able tournaments a month it would be a bit ambitious.

However, that said, if a player's season summary article is truly that incredibly action-packed and informative, then in theory, yes, it should be split. Sellyme^Talk 07:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's common practice to split large articles into smaller ones and simply summarise the child articles in the parent one. If all this info was to be merged into the the Roger Federer article, it would be in violation of WP:LENGTH and would probably have to lose it's GA status. Merging these articles would be a net negative for the encyclopedia. Jenks24 (talk) 03:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 15:25, 9 June 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.