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 to Guillermo Coria career statistics - Someone will obviously need to create the article (non-admin closure)Davey2010Talk 22:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Guillermo Coria career statistics/sub1 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per Guidelines this does not qualify for a seasonal article, nor do the other two recent Coria articles. The standard guidelines per consensus are that IF the main page of a player is getting overwhelmed, we would create a Guillermo Coria career statistics article like many other standout players have. He doesn't even have that yet! Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages for the exact same reasons:

Guillermo Coria career statistics/sub2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Guillermo Coria career statistics/sub3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
It would be a sham to delete these articles for the sake of a formality. Coria achieved much during his short career, including reaching the French Open final in 2004 and winning many masters titles. He was even considered the best clay-courter in the world in 2004. By the guideline that only players who won a slam qualify for tennis season articles, less talented players such as Gaudio and Cilic who fluked their single slam titles would receive tennis season articles whilst Coria would be excluded simply because he choked and had cramps on match point in the 2004 French Open. It would be a shame to delete three fully completed articles detailing his match history during his peak years of 2003-2005. He was a talented player and deserves these articles. Excluding players who didn't win slams would also exclude players such as Nalbandian and Ferrer which is not right considering both have reached many semis and a final each and Nalbandian was extremely talented, although inconsistent. I don't see what is wrong with keeping this articles up. How will Wikipedia benefit by deleting this articles, considering Wikipedia's aim is to spread information rather than limit its spread? Ujkrieger (talk) 18:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In response to Fyunck, I never thought of that. The three articles could be merged into a "Guillermo Coria career statistics" rather than deleted. Ujkrieger (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Players like Davis Ferrer do have career stats pages...see David Ferrer career statistics. That's the format that should be used to create one for Coria. Basically these season articles are only for players who have won a grand slam tournament that season. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:22, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:24, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti Talk 18:52, 8 April 2016 (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.