Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles Qualifying

:{{la|2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles Qualifying}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles Qualifying}})

Is this notable? It's only referenced to a PDF, couldn't this be merged to the main article? I think that would work better. If not, why not delete it? Nathan2055^{talk - review} 17:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 19:14, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose - I oppose only the deletion of the info. Per Tennis Project guidelines this draw is notable. However it really should be merged to the bottom of the 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles page as I see no reason why it needs it's own article. Once merged then I would agree to delete this page. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
• You can't delete an article once it's been merged – it needs to stay undeleted (generally in the form of a redirect) to provide attribution. Jenks24 (talk) 01:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
• Merge to 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles, and as a note to the nominator; if you think the primary action should be a merge, then you could have initiated a discussion on the article page or boldly merged it rather than taking it to AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 14:22, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

---

: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) 01:04, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

---

• Keep (changed to merge below) per Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article Guidelines#Notability which allows for articles on qualifying rounds for ATP World Tour events. The problem with merging is that these articles are fairly bulky in terms of screen space meaning the merged article gets difficult to navigate. --Marc Kupper|talk 18:50, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• :Have you seen the 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles page? It's tiny as wiki pages go and can easily accept the qualifying draw below it as a separate section. I agree that the qualifying is notable but the guidelines do not say it deserves a separate article only that it should be "included" in the draw article. There is no reason this should be separated and it should have simply been merged instead of discussing here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
• :: From a computing standpoint 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles is tiny at 18.7kb. If we keep the page in top-down chronological order then Qualifying goes above the Main draw section. At present Qualifying in the main article just has "Main article: 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles Qualifying" which seems to be an appropriate amount of screen real estate for this part of the tournament. The Qualifying page is also tiny (8.2kb) but uses 2.5 full pages of text on my monitor. That's why I called it "bulky." I suspect 99% of the people looking at the main article don't care about the qualifying rounds. We should not force them to scroll/page down for 2.5 pages to get to the main article content. We could use one of those show/hide blocks but I thought the WP:MOS strongly discouraged hidden content as it won't show up when you print the article, etc. I can't see anything in WP:MOS about this at the moment. Thus I was leaning towards keep rather than merge. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• :::Then the answer is to move the less important content to later in the article. -- Whpq (talk) 23:52, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
• :::: Merge - I updated 2011 Rogers Cup – Men's Singles to include the qualifying draw ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2011_Rogers_Cup_%E2%80%93_Men%27s_Singles&oldid=449237481 permalink]) which is also the result if we merged this content. In looking this over I'd say it's fine and added a notice on the wikiproject tennis talk page to see if there's resistance to updating their article guidelines. Also, I found the MOS section I was thinking of earlier at MOS:SCROLL / MOS:COLLAPSE. --Marc Kupper|talk 01:06, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
• :::::On first glance I like it! Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:12, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

: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.