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 Nomination withdrawn.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) 17:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Upper Austria Ladies Linz – Singles[edit]

2021 Upper Austria Ladies Linz – Singles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

unverified main and qualification draw. Related links do not open at all. Mandraketennis (talk) 14:56, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 16:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #1, The 'broken' references come from [1], which probably should have been cited in the first place instead of the PDF. The fact that some references in the article are broken is not by itself a basis for deleting an entire article. Iffy★Chat -- 17:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iffy: Maybe i need to write some indepth analysis here, even if i thought the issue was pretty much simple and easy to understand. I put up that page because it's the single draw of this year tournament, that is essentially a Draw page filled with results. Even the seeds and the retirements and qualifiers are draw- related. There is no other link to which one could refer to verify the informations provided than the draw from a reliable source. In this case there is any reliable source; there is any source at all. So since this page is all about the draw, without providing the only information needed to verify it, the draw itself, it has to be removed. I already check for possible sources of the draw, but found, at best, only the single's Qualification Draw and on twitter. Also it's a link which automatically download the file, so there's not any "visible" draw to link to, in case anyone would have thought about uploading it. To me, but also to the policy you can see on the official verifiable page of Wikipedia, "any content which cannot have a reliable source may be removed". Also " the creator is responsible to add that content. I already linked this page to the creator's talk page, as per guidelines and policies write about in case of proposing an article for deletion. Regards. Mandraketennis (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Huge/Speedy Keep As the creator of this article, there is only one form of reference for a tennis draw, and that is the draw taken from the WTA. If you could not open the PDF files, I am very sorry, although that is not a reason to delete the article. All the information is clearly present on the sources cited. Do not delete this page. And if you are going to delete this page for not having another source for the draw outside of the PDF files provided by the WTA, you are going to have to take that approach for all tennis draw pages. Alexxbrookss (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Huge Keep - this editor has added this tag to several tennis articles out of spite and has been reported. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:15, 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) 21:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@wolbo @fyunckx you are clearly making some personal attack here, talking about me and not the issue. You two are ignoring that the link in these case and the other 3 cases are not working at all. This is a blatantly contradiction of Wikipedia's stateline "new content needs verifiable source". Your misbehaviour is being noticed and reported.Mandraketennis (talk) 22:44, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• But the links DO work. The links are direct PDF download links from the WTA website, and the PDFs are complete draws. You are simply being obtuse by stating that the links are dead and the content isn't referenced. It is. If you cannot open a PDF file, that is not my fault.Alexxbrookss (talk) 23:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

tell Iffy that PDF link works, because even this editor talks about BROKEN reference in the comments above "Speedy Keep per WP:SKCRIT #1, The 'broken' references come from [1], which probably should have been cited in the first place instead of the PDF. The fact that some references in the article are broken is not by itself a basis for deleting an entire article. Iffy★Chat -- 17:00, 13 November 2021 (UTC)". So nice try to reverse the table but no, the links ARE BROKEN. So it goes consensus, for once in the right way.Mandraketennis (talk) 00:55, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That changes nothing, the links are working, and the draw is available as a PDF. You shouldn't request a deletion of an article because you cannot open a document, regardless of your personal feelings.

Goebbels said that repeating a lie a million times it becomes true, you're on a good start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandraketennis (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Huge keep' this article falls in line with the notability guidelines and it being promoted for deletion is an erroneous behavior. Qwerty284651 (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per those above. Proposer needs to read WP:BEFORE. Sod25 (talk) 02:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@sod25 I, 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, 4 in a minute, which could be considered canvassing, and the two user above @wolbo and @fyunck could be 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.Mandraketennis (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Before making strong accusations like canvassing and vote-stacking against other editors, perhaps you should actually familiarize yourself with the processes first, so you have even the slightest idea what you're talking about? And perhaps you should've nominated just one article for deletion first, to see if your concerns about these articles as a new user were valid?

To humor you, you say "verifiability and reliable sources, are not met in this article". Be specific. The only sources for this article are wtatennis.com and ladieslinz.at - the official women's tennis body website and the official tournament website. Which of these isn't reliable in your opinion? And precisely what in this article isn't verifiable? Sod25 (talk) 04:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sod25 I uploaded two very different tournaments' pages for deletion instead of a single one because they are so different, one is a common tournament, the other has a round robin, so since i didn't know if the procedure was different i uploaded both. I enlarged them to the doubles because it seemed disparaging not to take notice also of those. And i did not pick them out of the top of my hat, but because the links to the draws were missing in all 4 cases. That what's happened in this page since you asked me about, presumably because you didn't understand what we're talking in here, but anyhow that lacking of knowledge didn't prevent you from writing 2 comments before asking the issue at hand. Also i didn't make accusation, i used the conditional time, suggesting that someone, better if an admin, should check with those suspicious activities.

Bold of you to assume I'm the one who's confused here. Your tone is accusatory as the "suggest[ions]" are wrongly premised on the "activities" being "suspicious", and not just perfectly normal parts of the WP:Afd process. Sod25 (talk) 14:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't abide by what you think my tone is. Remember to stay on topic, not making it personal or i am going to ignore you and /or treat your comments as hostile. I followed the guidelines on canvassing and vote-stacking. I am a newcomer so i don't know what the common practice is here. I put my legitimate and states in guidelines suspicion up for an admin to eventually take a look. I couldn't care the less about what you think of me. Try to stay on argument and make less allegations based on what you think it's my "tone".

Try to stay on argument and make less [sic] allegations - advice to live by. Sod25 (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the "game the system" approach you are trying to make in here, hiding it under a mask of humour. I could be a newcomer in here, but i am a multi-year expert of tennis, so please be my guest on this topic. The reliable sources allowed by Wikipedia guidelines are not the two you mentioned. Those are the usually used by editors for practice, efficiency or whatever reason, that's what you have done. If you take the time to check with the Wikipedia guidelines you should know that social media sources could be used as well, i.e. they are deemed reliable under specific circumstance. They don't get used by editors since they prefer to set the pdf standard for the draws, and that's their taste. I prefer to have a draw from official source, even in jpg format than nothing at all, in fact i uploaded recently one of that, which was reverted, then unreverted, then reverted again, until pdf file was available and i was fine with that standard, i just don't like the "pdf file or nothing" common practice among tennis editors, but that's my taste. That said, there are unreliable sources, which are the journalistic ones. You could think that some blog or newspaper or "stakeholder" of tennis world would be as fine as the official websites, but they are not, without going that back in time, there is someone who wrote WTA finals are "indoor", that Mischa Zverev is playing the ATP finals, and the list goes on and on. So in my multi-year experience i tend not to rely on those unless i can independently verify with other, preferably multiple, sources. And i usually do this verification. So, you see there are official and reliable sources, official and (wrongly deemed) not reliable sources, unofficial and reliable, and unofficial and unreliable sources you seemed to be unaware of and that's disturbing to see in someone who edits tennis section: you don't know your sources?? If you want the links of sources divided by the categories above, i can easily provide them digging into my tennis archive, but that's over the scope of this page. As it goes for verifiability process, if the links provided for the draws can't be opened you can't verify a whiff, i don't need to use my tennis expertise on that. It's pretty much standard thinking.Mandraketennis (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of words, but you completely failed to answer the questions. This is not a general discussion about tennis article sourcing on Wikipedia, but about this specific article. So, again, which of wtatennis.com and ladieslinz.at, the two websites referenced in the article you've nominated for deletion here on the basis of "verifiability and reliable sources", are unreliable? And what information in the article is not verifiable? Keep in mind that "not verifiable" means can't be verified (no sources exist to verify it), not that the info is currently missing a citation. This is outlined in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Nominating article(s) for deletion (which you say you've read): If there are verifiability, notability or other sourcing concerns, take reasonable steps to search for reliable sources [...] If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. Instead, you should consider citing the sources, using the advice in Wikipedia:Citing sources, or at minimum apply an appropriate template to the page that flags the sourcing concern. Not being able to open pdfs on your device is not a valid basis for deletion of the article itself. Sod25 (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ok, i'm treating your comment as plain hostile now. IT's the new content added on wiki which should be verifiable with a legitimate source, not a source wchich should be verifiable ( against what? A wikipedia page, lol). If you have a source which is legitimate but has no link related to verify what is upped on wikipages it doesn't matter at all. You could have posted a link to NBA as draw for what your rationale goes, which is a reliable source. Yes NBA is reliable but has no draw link to upper austria tournament, as WTA hasn't. The fact that WTA, NBA, NFL, and whatever are reliable sources has no relation with the specific case. There's no link broken in my pc, there's no link at all to check it on. And if you can't check the info which makes 80% of the article, over the only link presented, either you upload some different link with this info, or cancel the whole article. This is my view on the topic, otherwise i would have used the "citation needed" or other tags. I repeat, since the whole article is a giant draw filled with scores, without draw, without the matches in their proper order, you can't have the page. That's my view, and why i proposed that article for deletion. You are free to think otherwise and argue about that, but not to say things that are false. "The link is broken" is false. The link was never working. You don't know that probably, sorry, for sure because you're not interested in tennis matches and tournaments, otherwise you would have checked about this link at the same time as i did. I waited and waited for a link to be uploaded on the official website and nothing appeared on WTA or Linz. That's what happened. So now you already know the state of art of this article and are now being educated about its history, maybe i can expect some thoughtful comment for a change, or probably you shouldn 't have posted any of that before reaching this current point. Lol, it's everywhere full of people making ignorant comments first and asking questions later. If you don't understand my answer even this time, please ask someone else for help.Mandraketennis (talk) 16:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[T]here's no link at all to check it on. ? There are 3 links at the bottom of the article, in the "External links" section. These links were there before you nominated this article for deletion [2], i.e. they haven't been added in the meantime. All three links work. The two links to PDFs are published by the WTA and are hosted on the WTA website (click "Download draw" here). You admit the WTA is a reliable source. So what is your issue? If the links didn't work for you (i.e. they were "broken"), that isn't valid cause for deletion of the article as I already explained and you would have known if you had read WP:BEFORE. Sod25 (talk) 16:47, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I have went ahead and added a couple of more sources on the tournament result just in case the sources provided originally were lacking. If I am understanding this situation correctly, the article was nominated for deletion not for lack of sources or notability but because the draw links don't open?? (they seem to open just fine for me by the way, they just download as a PDF file) I am not sure how this is even a valid criteria for deletion, but nonetheless, there are quite a few sources out there that can additionally be added if anyone feels like the ones present don't do enough to assert notability. But that is just my view on things. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw Links to wtatennis website are now working, still no pdf, but to me it's a detail. I am going to retreat this article. Mission accomplished.Mandraketennis (talk) 17:02, 14 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.