Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Coupe Banque Nationale

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. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Coupe Banque Nationale (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)

WP:CRYSTAL violations, TBA and TBD etc. Only source provided is by the event itself. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 23:57, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I can understand when someone creates an event when it's a year away... but this is less than 3 weeks from starting and we already have some of the seeds listed. I don't think it's that unusual for the tournament info to start getting filled in already. Heck the 2015 US Open started getting filled in on June 3, 2015. It starts next week, so it was 3 months beforehand. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:21, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I agree with the preceding comment, it's pretty standard for tennis tournament information to be filled in on a rolling basis as information becomes available closer to the event. If the page is deleted now, it will just have to be recreated in substantially the same form in a couple of weeks. Yimingbao (talk) 01:27, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTNEWS Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:12, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleting this article now serves no practical purpose. Per previous comments, it is common to create a tennis tournament edition article some time in advance as information (players, withdrawals, prize money, etc.) becomes available. That the article has only one source at the moment is not a valid reason for a deletion.--Wolbo (talk) 13:04, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  According to WP:RS and WP:GNG it is. The source needs to show notability seperate from the subject. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Not quite. GNG is a guideline that "is best treated with common sense." This 2015 event is also talked about at the WTA website and in Quebec guides. A month out is pretty reasonable for concerts and tournaments. Heck, we already have a 2024 Olympic article, a June 2016 concert tour for an italian singer and a 2016 hockey game. Sure this event is smaller than the hockey game (but not the singer) but I'd cut it some slack 3 weeks out. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Other stuff existing is not a valid rationale. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 21:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm afraid it is when it shows that it is common wikipedia consensus that events such as this are usually wiki-articles long before the actual event takes place. It's simply a question on what is a reasonable time frame, and I think 3 weeks is easily in the ballpark. 2015 Tour of Flanders for Women article started more than a month before the race, Maroon 5 World Tour 2015 article started 5 months before the tour, 2016 Democratic National Convention is not till next July but we have an article on it. I'm not passing judgement on whether those articles should exist or not, but when we have a tennis tournament that's only 3 weeks away it seems wp:pointy to complain about the article being created. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sorry I checked out when you kept citing WP:OTHERCRAP again. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Toffanin (talk) 00:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per others. And with respect to having to meet meet independent notability, applying some common sense to the situation would lead me to believe that notability won't be an issue when we have a series of articles for prior year instances of this tournament. -- Whpq (talk) 13:15, 29 August 2015 (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.