Deletion of Rafael Nadal in 2010

Comment: WP:INDISCRIMINATE|Wikipedia is not a statistics database. Any useful summary information should be in the athletes article or if it is gets too long, a career details article. The fact |other statistical articles exist is no reason to keep these, it is reason to consider nominating the others for deletion also
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF)

Comment: We allow season articles in team sports, and I see no reason why such articles in individual sports couldn't be notable or well-sourced for preeminent stars such as Federer.  |Undue weight would certainly apply to journeyman golfers, race car drivers or tennis players, but I'd have to imagine there'd be enough to say about the years of a Federer, a Tiger Woods or a Jeff Gordon to sustain such articles and strip excess detail out of the main articles
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (WP:UNDUE)

Comment: The nominator didn't provide examples of BLP problems, because this is a WP:NOT problem, not a BLP one. |Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. While statistical information could be useful to the fan, it is difficult to argue that it's encyclopedic. There is however a way for the above articles to be kept, if someone is willing to '''merge''' all the nominated articles into a single list, removing the statistics content and retaining the text. But until so, I agree to a delete
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:INDISCRIMINATE)

Comment: If you keep on citing otherstuffexist argument Wjemather you are in a completely erroneous argument because Federer's page dictated via |Size Rule that it was forthright to have been split so does Rafael Nadal's right now, which I will get done eventually when I have time
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Article size (WP:SIZERULE)

Comment: WP:INDISCRIMINATE|Wikipedia is not an indescriminate source of information, and where articles in this vein present nothing but a raw list or table of a year's results, they should generally be deleted per this policy.  On the other hand, some articles about the year in the career of a sports-person are absolutely appropriate for inclusion. Doug Ring with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|1, Ron Hamence with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|2, Ernie Toshack with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|3, Neil Harvey with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|4, Sam Loxton with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|5, Lindsay Hassett with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|6, Keith Miller in the 1946–47 Australian cricket season|7, Keith Miller with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|8, Ray Lindwall with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|9, Sid Barnes with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|10, Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948|11 are all ''featured articles'' of the form "Person X in year Y", and surely nobody could argue that they warrant deletion.The difference between an indiscriminate database and a valid article is the presence of sufficient |significant coverage in reliable sources to support a substantial prose discussion of the subject.  Each of these articles features a well referenced prose section, and as such there is no reason for their deletion.&nbsp
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: All the articles have enough |reliable sources to pass |GNG
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:GNG)

Comment: I feel the argument I made in my WP:!vote|!vote above has not quite been understood (probably my fault), so allow me to reiterate and address in particular the remarks relating to the |Other Stuff Exists essay.The point I am trying to make is that there are some "People X in year Y" articles that should be deleted (perhaps the one about Vonn was one, I can't see it as it was deleted), and there are some (Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 etc.) that should not.  Simply being about a sportsperson over the course of a year is not sufficient to warrant deletion.  I have proposed a standard to differentiate between these two: the old faithful |general notability guideline.  These articles definitely meet the GNG, and so should not be deleted.  That is my argument, and it ''is not'' simply that other articles of this nature exist, and so these should too.Regarding the indiscriminate nature of the statistics tables: this is not a matter for AfD.  If editors do not like the large tables at the bottoms of these articles, or they feel that the prose sections are too formulaic ''they should |be bold and remove the tables or improve the prose''.&nbsp
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:OTHERSTUFF||WP:GNG||WP:BOLD)