Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1993 ATP Tour

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 --JForget 00:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1993 ATP Tour

1993 ATP Tour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

I don't really see how this is useful to the encyclopedia. It just seems to be a very large list; that's it. —Jonathan 18:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep It's useful...it's listing all the main tennis events sponsored by the ATP during every year and who won them, for quick and easy reference and comparison. It saves a lot of travel and link-clicking of the ATP website, whereas everything is on one page here. It's the same way with the 2007 ATP tour, 2006 ATP tour, etc. And deletion of the material after such hard work checking everything would not be very nice. GAThrawnIGF (talk) 18:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This seems to be an acceptable method of sorting this kind of info; note that there several other 199x and 200x ATP Tour pages in the template at the bottom. I can see no reason to single out just one of these. However, I would make sure to add a little more context to each list. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 18:43, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is what a list should be like ... I note that most similar professional tours have season articles like this one. Blueboy96 20:13, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. I do agree with TenPoundHammer though, that some context and information needs to be added to these lists. If it isn't, then they'll keep coming back to AfD I'm afraid. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. You're actually fighting something much bigger here, if this were deleted then by principle, all the others would have to be. Lists of winners are encyclopaedic - I'll accept that something like this probably wouldn't appear in a physical encyclopaedia but we're not bound by volume here, the sky's the limit. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
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.