Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Davenport–V. Williams rivalry

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Davenport–V. Williams rivalry

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

It is just a repository of results and is unsourced. There are also no reliable sources, which describe this as a rivalry. Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{Let's talk about}_{about my edits?} 09:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Similar tennis rivalry articles have been deleted recently , e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agassi–Chang rivalry (2nd nomination). The problem is that without independent media coverage about 'the rivalry' itself, these articles are nothing but head-to-head results lists, and we have no prose to go with it. It then fails WP:NOTSTATSBOOK.

According to WP:NSPORTS, rivalries are not inherently notable. We need several sources about the rivalry to justify having a standalone article about it. That's also what we included in the notability guidelines on the wikiproject tennis recently Wikipedia:WikiProject_Tennis/Article_guidelines#Notability.

If somebody can find sources we can keep this article, otherwise it is a delete. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:56, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

delete doesn't meet gng Pass a Method talk 21:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unreferenced, and as nom indicated, functions only as a list of results. No content worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. Cloudz 679 21:26, 22 January 2012 (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.