Talk:2003 Roger Federer tennis season

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

Keep, 06/06/2011, see discussion.
no consensus, 21 November 2010, see discussion.

Tennis Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tennis, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that relate to tennis on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TennisWikipedia:WikiProject TennisTemplate:WikiProject Tennistennis articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tennis To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Cleanup : Take an item off the Cleanup listing
Copyedit : Roger Federer, Leander Paes, Rafael Nadal, Justine Henin – to be used as examples for ideal page structures
Expand : Grab a Start article and expand it, or peruse the List of articles.
Photo : Add photos to Tennis or Tennis people articles
Stubs : Bring a Stub up to our standards.
Other : *Sign up as a member of the project.
Tag more articles with our standard project template.
Help with the creation of yearly main articles and drawsheets for every Open Era ATP and WTA tournament.

Switzerland C‑class Low‑importance

	Switzerland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Switzerland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Switzerland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SwitzerlandWikipedia:WikiProject SwitzerlandTemplate:WikiProject SwitzerlandSwitzerland articles
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Article Deletion Discussion

I was looking through the comments on deleting this article, and I saw that some of those who wanted to delete this article made comments such as "Wikipedia is not a sports almanac". Well, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and according to Dictionary.com, the definition of an encyclopedia is:

A book or set of books containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge...

I am somewhat perplexed. If an encyclopedia covers all branches of knowledge, then how is it that any article could be nominated for deletion based on an argument that Wikipedia doesn't cover that topic? I have had articles deleted based on this argument, and to me it just doesn't hold water, because then the exact same argument could be made for any article. For example, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a repository for warship information, or Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a musical database, or Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an astrological index. Using those three arguments, we could eliminate several thousand articles...in fact a similar argument could be used to eliminate nearly any article. Take today's featured article, Stark Raving Dad. I could argue that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to put CliffsNotes on Simpson's episodes. How about the article on CliffsNotes? I could say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to put describe corporate product lines. Where does it end?

While I concur that blatant advertising, slander, unreferenced work, original research, lewdness, lack of notability of the subject, and the like have no place here, deleting an article based on topic (as opposed to subject) opens a huge can of worms. It happens all the time, and it is wrong.

J appleseed2 (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]