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 delete. J04n(talk page) 17:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hewitt-Roddick Rivalry

[edit]

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

Per WP:NSPORTS "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." Tennis guidelines say the same. There seems to be a steady stream of these rivalry pages lately. Tennis is a sport that inherently has players near the same ranking playing each other on a regular basis. See also WTA Big Three and Azarenka–Sharapova rivalry for other recent arrivals. We've also had deletions for Agassi–Rafter rivalry, Davenport–V. Williams rivalry, Davenport–Hingis rivalry, Becker–Sampras rivalry, etc... It's one thing to list this on a page like List of tennis rivalries, but to make a separate article seems like a poor choice to me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, trickle-over-the-net keep. I hadn't heard of it, but surprisingly, sportswriters have talked about it from 2001[1] to 2012[2][3]. Who knew? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Despite Clarityfiend's good input I believe this 'rivalry' is not notable enough and falls in the same category as previously deleted rivalry articles (Federer–Hewitt, Becker–Sampras, Agassi–Rafter). Agree with the OP that we should avoid proliferation of rivalry articles that are merely based on high ranking players competing against each other regularly.--Wolbo (talk) 13:24, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LlamaAl (talk) 00:11, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rivalries WP:NRIVALRY"Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries should satisfy the general notability guideline."
General notability guideline WP:GNG"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list."
This has received significant coverage in reliable sources and satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Content is a good thing this isn't a paper encyclopedia. Theworm777 (talk) 10:31, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But just because it gets press doesn't mean it needs an encyclopedic stand-alone entry. This can and should be mentioned on the individual's articles. Serena Williams shoe size gets 86,000 google hits but we don't write an article on it. If it's important we include it in her own wiki article. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:32, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:26, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 01:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:31, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, sure, they met 14 times, but nothing in the article let me think this "rivalry" is more significant or somewhat different from other tennis players who met themselves 5, 10, 20 or 30 times. Furthermore, as noted by the nominator, there is a long-established consensus about the lack of encyclopedic value of this kind of tennis rivalries.Cavarrone (talk) 09:39, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ESPN and Sports Illustrated articles references in the article, both call it a rivalry, and cover it. Whenever something passes the WP:GNG, its notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Nominator mentions other rivalry articles that were deleted, I assume because of lack of coverage, but I recall several such articles in the past ending as keep because we had coverage of them. What happened to articles in the past has nothing to do with what happens to this one though. Dream Focus 15:23, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, the Sports Illustrated article does not cover the rivalry we are discussing here, it trivially mentions the word "rivalry" just as a reference to the specific 2001 US Open match it reports. And basically at the time of the article this assumed rivalry was non-existent at all, it was just the second match between the two athletes, and the article does not even mention their first match at French Open. The ESPN article is definitely better, but not so different by similar routine articles we have every time that two well-known tennis players met several times. Cavarrone (talk) 16:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While a rivalry certainly exists, it doesn't warrant a separate article, the guys have never even met in a final and it certainly does not rank anywhere near the likes of Federer-Nadal, Djokovic-Nadal. I see no reason how it warrants a separate article? It consists of very little apart from a list of all their meetings, its not an "article" by any stretch of the imagination, if need be, just improve upon the small section it has in each player's respective articles. Mwhittaker92 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only real source for rivalry is ESPN, and reading the article doesn't show it--it seems to be just a headline. News articles are good source, headlines aren't because they emphasize anything that eye-catching. DGG ( talk ) 02:00, 16 March 2013 (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.