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. Where the material should be is a subject to be discussed beyond AfD, but there is clearly consensus to retain the article at this time Fritzpoll (talk) 12:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Williams Sisters rivalry

[edit]
Williams Sisters rivalry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Originally marked with the prod tag by User:Tennis expert with the following reason: "Unnecessary single purpose article that duplicates information already in the Venus Williams and Serena Williams articles." Author removed the prod tag. I agree with Tennis Master that this article doesn't provide anything substantial that the Venus and Serena articles don't already have. Matt (talk) 09:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not reduce duplication by removing the material from the sisters' articles and leaving it in this one? RenegadeMonster (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Or in Williams sisters ? RenegadeMonster (talk) 09:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KeepI believe that this article, like the Federer-Nadal rivalry one, helps to A)shed light on this historic rivalry without having duplicate info on both pages; B) redirect lists from the already-cluttered Venus and Serena pages; provide a singular focus on a rivalry between athletes and sisters which has been called "historic" and "once in a lifetime". Alonsornunez (talk) 09:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The information should be retained in the well- and long-established Venus and Serena articles. The longstanding consensus in those articles is to treat their rivalry there. In fact, whenever anyone has attempted to delete the rivalry information in those articles, the deletion has been promptly reverted. It's important to note that the author of the Williams Sisters rivalry article is now attempting to avoid its deletion by adding POV-filled commentary, and this article is just the latest example of that author's paying lip service to consensus while blatantly ignoring it. See, for example, his attempt to delete 8,000kb+ of text in the Serena Williams article and then flagrantly ignoring WP:Consensus and WP:BRD by repeating the attempt over and over again. This is the same tactic that tennis editors have witnessed before by the highly disruptive Musiclover565, Whitenoise123, and associated IP sockpuppets who, by the way, are still vandalizing Wikipedia. Tennis expert (talk) 09:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See also this, where administrator AGK was attempting to work out the details of Musiclover565 returning to Wikipedia, an attempt that failed when Musiclover565 decided to forego that route in favor of IP account editing that wasn't as anonymous as he had hoped. Tennis expert (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not believe that because something has long-standing that it is immune from improvement. (That's why I love Wikipedia in fact!) The author has attempted to reach NPOV as much as possible, and welcomes any edits or suggestions on the Talk page. I will avoid discussing issues occurring on other pages; I only wish to see this article, which I see as pertinent, given a chance to develop. The length of Venus and Serena's pages is an issue, as is the understandably overlapping information between them. This Williams Sisters rivalry page would solve both those problems (or at least move towards a solution). Alonsornunez (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of immediately adding a duplicative article to Wikipedia, you should first return to the Venus and Serena Williams talk pages to get consensus for removing the rivalry information from those articles. If consensus develops to remove the information, then it might be appropriate to add a separate article about their rivalry, subject, again, to there being consensus for that article. Tennis expert (talk) 09:49, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not see the article as duplicating anything else. I saw it (in much the same way as the Federer-Nadal rivalry page is viewed) as a chance to expand upon the areas between these two players, and two analyze and inform about the history and dynamics of the rivalry. It seems much more reasonable to me to have a separate page for this than to attempt to split up the information between the two players pages or worse, to duplicate it. Once this course of action was taken it seemed natural to me to move the tables for their head-to-head from their crowded player pages. Alonsornunez (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop misrepresenting history. Your edit history shows that you first attempted to delete the table completely (not transfer it somewhere else). When your deletion was reverted, you did it again and again, repeatedly and intentionally ignoring both WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Then, you created the Williams Sisters rivalry article with just the table. It was only when the article was proposed for deletion that you scrambled to add all the POV-filled text. As I've said above, tennis editors have seen these same highly disruptive tactics before. Coincidence? I think not. Tennis expert (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would ask that you please stop inferring a lack of good faith. My deletion of the table was parallel to the Williams sisters rivalry, not a precursor. The head-to-head info seems to me repetitive of internal info and overly specific for the two players' pages, and it duplicates itself between their pages. I was working ( via a Word document) on the bulk of the Williams Sisters rivalry text, and as I did so I thought of porting over the table (please note that I did not at this time delete it from either page). Please elaborate on the Williams Sisters rivalry Talk page about any POV issues; improvement of the article is welcome! And again, in the spirit of Wikipedia: Good Faith and believe me when I say that I am not another poster, that I am only myself and that I am here to help make these articles the best that they can be. Alonsornunez (talk) 16:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dishonesty is not going to help your cause. You created the Williams Sisters rivalry article on March 3, 2009. But you deleted the table from the Serena Williams article on February 28, 2009, with this edit summary: "Page is already too long, and these tables/lists are readily available on the WTA page and violate WP:NOT." You also deleted the table from the Venus Williams article on February 28, 2009, with this edit summary: "These tables/stat lists seemed too long and took up too much space for something that is both in violation of WP:NOT and that is readily available on the WTA official site." After having your deletion of the table reverted, you then on March 1, 2009, unilaterally deleted the table again, in violation of WP:BRD and WP:Consensus. Tennis expert (talk) 17:02, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop accusing me of malicious intent. There is none intended. I stated that after I created the Williams Sisters rivalry article I did not attempt to delete either identical table from the players' pages. I agree that I acted to hastily in the second edit, but have acted in good faith and have not deleted them since. I have instead (via the creation of the Williams Sisters rivalry article) attempted to find a different way to shorten the players articles and reduce duplication of the same info across two pages (as exists currently with the table being on both player's pages) Please stop inferring "dishonesty", "misrepresentation" and lying about my identity. As a frequent editor of Wikipedia I would hope my dedication would put me above such personal attacks. Alonsornunez (talk) 17:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frequent or new? You've said the latter several times in the last few days.... Yet, you know enough about Wikipedia to be able to cite obscure Wikipedia policy and the "GA" process. So, I think it's the former. By the way, you are still trying to push a large deletion of material concerning the Serena Williams article (8,000+kb), despite being reverted, despite being asked not to do so, and despite WP:Consensus and WP:BRD. Therefore, it is hard to believe your "I acted to [sic] hastily" statement, above, when you are continuing to engage in the same disruptive behaviors today. Tennis expert (talk) 17:44, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a registered Wiki editor for just two weeks now, but have contributed frequently. I therefore use both. I have had to learn Wiki policy rather quickly in order to defend edits and suggestions; I do not believe that anything that can be internally searched can reasonably called 'obscure'. I have asked repeatedly and kindly that you end yoru personal accusations, and I will now stop responding to them. Please enjoy your day. I will not be engaging with you directly on this matter further.Alonsornunez (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's weird. You created your account 20 months ago, not two weeks ago. See this. Which IP accounts have you used? Is 92.4.0.45 one of them? Tennis expert (talk) 19:59, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, you got me. I lied. I meant I've been using my registered account for two weeks. Seriously, though, this is getting a little creepy. I created an account...hold on....Okay, I created an account in May, and posted twice before beginning to seriously post two weeks ago. You got me, I misspoke. I only have one account/IP/whatever; please stop your unfounded allegations. Please? Thanks Mr.Expert Alonsornunez (talk) 00:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your credibility (or the lack thereof) is in serious question. You said, above, on March 4, 2009, "I have been a registered Wiki editor for just two weeks now, but have contributed frequently." Yet, you said on HJensen's discussion page on March 4, 2009, "I'm a new user here at Wikipedia...." You said on the tennis project discussion page on February 25, 2009, "I am new here to Wikipedia...." You said on the tennis project discussion page on February 26, 2009, "I am a new Wikipedia editor....". You said on your own discussion page on February 27, 2009, "Only been doing this for a little while." You said on the tennis project discussion page on February 28, 2009, "I'm new, and unsure how to do this!". Misrepresenting the facts not once, not twice, not three times, not four times - but five times - makes it very unlikely that you innocently "misspoke". Revised by Tennis expert (talk) 11:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop the personal attacks. I am asking as one Wiki editor to another. I created an account in May, used it twice before two weeks ago (please see my contributions); I absolutely consider myself new. I tested it out twice in nine months before starting regularly. I am absolutely a new user! I assume good faith from my fellow Wiki editors, please do the same. Alonsornunez (talk) 12:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a newly created account whose first substantive contribution to Wikipedia was the above and whose third contribution was the minor correction of a discussion page post from Alonsornunez. Something smells fishy (probably a new sockpuppet of the latter). Tennis expert (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2009 (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.
More