Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tennis

The infobox at the top of ‘career statistics’ needs to be changed. If it has to remain an infobox, a template should probably be created. Using the ‘infobox’ class like this causes the table to display poorly on mobile (at least in my case). The width of one column is not consistent across all rows. I also tried explicitly setting the width, but it didn’t work. – JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

JamesAndersoon (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

One thing for sure. Never ever add that last red total row. We would never total singles and doubles stats together and I'm always having to remove those rows. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree, but that’s still the least critical issue. The real problem is how it renders on mobile, and that needs to be addressed. It would also make sense to build a template (like we discussed for performance timelines), but I’m not sure why no one is taking ownership of that. JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:56, 21 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm not sure we need a template but it certainly needs to work way better in mobile. The columns must align and that needs to be addressed. There are several different versions of these charts, so maybe one works better than the rest? Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I’m not aware of multiple versions—I just know it doesn’t work on mobile, and that needs to be fixed already. It’s pointless to spend ages dealing with a single small table. If other elements have templates, why shouldn’t this have one as well? It would make things much easier for everyone, just like the player infobox template does. I don’t see alignment issues there (at least not in my case). JamesAndersoon (talk) 08:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yeah there are three or four different incarnations. We didn't used to have these tables... they just sort of appeared one day like a lot of tables do. I saw them and thought "I guess they could be useful" and moved on, not realizing they didn't align on a cellphone. I rarely use a phone for wikipedia so I never noticed. But these are bad on a phone and need to be fixed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

As just a table it works well:

But turn it into an infobox so it's right justified and prose can be written on the left, and it goes kablewie. Fyunck(click) (talk) 00:26, 24 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Then add 'style=text-align:right' for wikitable. JamesAndersoon (talk) 10:51, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I propose asking at WP:VPT for technical guidance. 8rz (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

@JamesAndersoon and Fyunck(click): I made modifications to the above infobox so it displays properly in mobile. The change, if accepted, could be applied to the current infoboxes. 8rz (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I moved Olympics to proper location. Will this display on the right side like an infobox or could we create an infobox with this table inside? I certainly did not like the way the infobox was originally displaying on mobile at all so this would be a marked improvement. But will it work the same? The thing about infoboxes is they right justify and you can have text and a table of contents on the left sharing the same vertical space. Usually with a table justified to the right we would only have a heap of blank white space on the left. That might look equally weird so we'd need an example of aesthetics with a sandbox page. I asked at the infobox help page but no one seemed interested. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Fyunck(click), the table invokes the infobox "class" {| class="infobox vcard vevent", so it definitely behaves like an infobox. Plus, it is easier to edit as a table instead of as a template with parameters and whatnot.

You would have had a better chance for a reply on WP:VPT (high-traffic page). 8rz (talk) 08:25, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Fyi, you can use style=float:left or right to float any element left or right. Or with div tags. 8rz (talk) 08:44, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I guess I misread your post... I thought you fixed the second rendition instead of the original. So the following version works fine on phones?

Rowspan was the cause of the skewed up version on mobile. By converting "singles" and "doubles" from row- to colspan resolves the issue. The original now displays the same on both desktop as well as mobile. 8rz (talk) 08:49, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

On my iphone 14 they both still look a bit wonky. Columns do not align. They may be better but not correct like the table version looks. Maybe androids handle it differently? Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:55, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Send me screenshots via imgur, so I can take a closer look. 8rz (talk) 09:04, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Fyunck(click):, in your preferences->Testing and development->Mobile sidebar preview show page in mobile view while browsing the desktop site (Vector skin only), you can enable a custom gadget that will display both desktop and mobile versions (phone with the mobile display in bottom right) simultaneously to check for errors and inconsistencies. 8rz (talk) 15:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@8rz I still have the issue on mobile. It’s obvious that the infobox handles columns differently from a regular table. What still confuses me, though, is how the main infobox for tennis players (Infobox Tennis Biography) keeps the same width for all field labels? That made me think we could maybe do something similar here as well. JamesAndersoon (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

The problem is hardcoded in wikipedia's commons itself, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Tables skewed with infobox class (WP:VPT, for short). Converting the infoboxes tables in the 220 pages (ending in "career statistics") to an infobox would resolve the issue. 8rz (talk) 18:29, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

So tell me again why this edit in my sandbox won't work? It seems to look good on my iphone. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I didn't say it wouldn't work. Just a normal right-aligned table. 8rz (talk) 22:56, 15 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@JamesAndersoon: We don't need any special wiki code to be changed or invented, and I think it aligns just fine. It's got to be better than what we have now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:35, 16 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Fyunck(click), @JamesAndersoon, if you two agree about replacing the "infobox-class" table with "wikitable nowrap" class, I can have the change implemented on all 220 affected pages. 8rz (talk) 02:05, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Is the table rather than infobox ideal... no. Is it 100x better since all the columns align... yes. So I'm all for it. We will still have minor work to do since we don't want any of the notes on recent players. And some slightly older players will have a "WTA Elite" header under WTA Finals. And some infoboxes dont have WTA 500 and WTA 250... they simply combined them into WTA tour (not as good). Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:20, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

All one needs to do is change the classes, everything else remains untouched. class="infobox vcard vevent nowrap" -> class="wikitable floatright".

P.S. I am working on an infobox in the background which is going to take a while. Infobox implementation TBD. 8rz (talk) 10:17, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree! JamesAndersoon (talk) 17:08, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

@8rz:One thing though... to be of similar sizing as the original it should be class="wikitable floatright nowrap" style=font-size:85%. That would be much closer to what we have now. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

That and style=margin-left:1em to separate the table from the text. 8rz (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's been 10 days. Assuming no further comments I will be moving forward with the update. 8rz (talk) 00:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Update has failed badly on many many articles... need a quick undue or fix. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sorry for the late response. Fixed the issue on the pages. 8rz (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

As I keep seeing them, those charts sure came out nice. Good job. Fyunck(click) (talk) 02:31, 18 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Wanted to ask if somebody could do something with Catherine Leduc (tennis).

The situation is that Catherine Leduc (musician) crossed over from "musician notable only as member of band" to "musician with standalone solo notability" this week — but since there were over 30 redlinks waiting for the tennis player, thus making it very clear that she's notable too, I wasn't about to simply commandeer the plain title for the musician. So I repointed all of the redlinks to the tennis-disambiguated version, created the musician at a disambiguated title, and made a dab page at the plain title.

However, since dab pages with only one bluelink are vulnerable to deletion, and I obviously don't want a hash to be made of everything by having the musician moved overtop of the dab page so long as the tennis player has a credible notability claim, I wanted to ask if somebody with more expertise in writing and sourcing tennis bios than I've got can either get at least a rudimentary article about the tennis player in place, or figure out a viable target for an {{R with possibilities }} redirect, so that her link doesn't stay red. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 14:21, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

Done! I have created the article. Now anyone can change it the way they feel like it should be done Haddad Maia fan (talk) 16:00, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I just want to say that I have went ahead and WP:PROD the tennis article. Leduc the tennis player, though she has a significant number of wikilinks due to her participation in many Canadian tennis tournaments, seemingly only participated in these tournaments as a wildcard due to being a local player. She doesn't have any significant success on the pro tennis tour and I couldn't find any WP:SIGCOV about her. She also hasn't played a professional match since 2020 so she is seemingly retired and news is unlikely to come out now. There aren't any good redirect targets out there so it might be more appropriate in my opinion to have the musician's article at Catherine Leduc and not have a disambiguation page and either keep the redlinks to Catherine Leduc (tennis) or just unlink them. Adamtt9 (talk) 16:08, 14 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

So, I was reading the article on the Brazilian player Gabriela Cé and noticed that the body of the text covers only a small portion of her career, in fact, it only conteins information on a single season and title. Given her lengthy professional career and additional achievements, there appears to be considerable room for expansion.

So if anyone is interested on helping, I think that there is much more that could be added there Haddad Maia fan (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The ITF was officially renamed as World Tennis, so I suppose it is correct and appropriate to come here to discuss on how this name change will be handled across the various instances the former name would be used on Wikipedia and all of its other affiliated projects. I already renamed the ITF article and changed its lead section and infobox, but I know that we have more to do

So, what do you think would be the best direction to go? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 10:34, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I see on the article World Tennis abbreviated to WT, but I can't actually find an instance on their website where they use the abbreviation. YellowStahh (talk) 16:42, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

It is now being moved to simply, World Tennis. No need for parenths as that can be mentioned in the lead. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:33, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I tried that but a warning appeared saying it was already in use by some other article, that is why I used parentheses Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:47, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

It was simply a redirect page so I asked to have it moved. I don't think there'll be any issue. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

About the image on the World Tennis article, should we remove the current one? How would we acquire the license to use the new logo? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

We will never get the license.... small low quality logos are usually ok. Wikipedia:Logos tells us that it is acceptable for Wikipedia to use logos belonging to others for encyclopedic purposes within certain parameters. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

We don’t need to acquire a license. We need to determine whether it passes the threshold of originality. If doesn’t, it is not copyrightable and we can upload it to commons. If it does, we can only use under the non-free content policy and it has to be uploaded directly to this site. T v x1 22:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

The Eastbourne International is also a wheelchair tennis tournament and I think the article is in need of an update to include that. How do you think this would work? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2026 (UTC) Reply

I would only list the winners in the past finals/winners section instead of creating an entire section on it. For creating the results pages, see "Pages in category "Wheelchair tennis tournaments" in Category:Wheelchair tennis tournaments. 8rz (talk) 05:49, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Why have all information about medals on infoboxes of articles about tennis players disappeared?

I went to several articles and the medals are not showing up anymore. Why did this happen? Was there any discussion I missed? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 11:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

No discussion was held, to my knowledge. Reported the issue at Template talk:Infobox tennis biography#Bug report: olympic medals missing 8rz (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Another question on the topic: How do we handle the medals from Olympic Games editions where tennis was a demonstration or exhibition sport? Do we include them on the infobox properly identifying them as demonstration or exhibition or do we leave them just on the body of the article? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 19:20, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

They are not official Olympic medals, so nothing would be shown in the infobox. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:23, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Resolved

8rz (talk) 21:25, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I wouldn't include the medals from the demo and exhib events in the infobox. Not official olympic events. 8rz (talk) 21:27, 2 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It has come to my attention that many articles within the Tennis WikiProject could benefit from additional attention. In some cases, they lack sufficient sources to support the existing content; in others, the subject is covered far less comprehensively than the available information would allow, leaving the article extremely short.

A few months ago, I compiled a list of some of these articles and posted it here. It was correctly moved to the Tennis/Cleanup WikiProject’s talk page. However, I ran into the problem that this talk page appears to be largely inactive. If you visit it, you’ll find only my list and one much older discussion.

My question is whether there is a better way to bring attention to articles that I believe need improvement, or whether I simply have to wait until someone happens to visit that specific talk page and notices my list. Haddad Maia fan (talk) 03:51, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think most editors want to work on creating new players and updating current players rather than work on older articles.... so it's tough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Well... If anyone is interested on taking a look at my list and see if there’s anything that could be done to those articles, be my guest Haddad Maia fan (talk) 13:16, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have serious doubts that some of these players whose articles are listed there are actually notable. T v x1 19:17, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

When I was editing regularly I often added sources to articles written by other editors, but the number of pages in tennis project is vast and there were many pages that I didn't edit. Posting lists of articles that need attention (as you have done) is a good thing to do, but not as good as spending time looking for and adding sources to articles yourself. Tennishistory1877 (talk) 21:40, 4 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

There is a discussion at Draw key talk about adding a "short" parameter to the key. This morphed from adding optional to all parameters. It's a minor addition to add "short" but perhaps some would want different additions or subtractions in the short parameter. Join in if so. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

It seems the Wimbledon website has had a refresh and a lot of the old player profiles have gone, now with profiles of this year's players only. This leaves Template:Wimbledon player kind of useless. AxG / ✉ 17:08, 8 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The redirect Internationally Tennis U.S.A. has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 July 10 §Internationally Tennis U.S.A. until a consensus is reached. LazyLune (talk • edits) 07:06, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

So, I created the draft on Bertrand Perret, the French tennis coach, which recently got accepted as an article, but I got into a conflict of information.

One source I have said he became a coach in 2011, and another one said he was the one responsible for spotting the potential on Paul-Henri Mathieu when he was young, being his coach at TC Lingolshem, but that would be impossible, because Mathieu turned pro in 1999, as his article says so.

Can anyone help me solve this mistery? Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:13, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I also have sources stating that he coached Renata Zarazúa and Tatjana Maria, but I couldn’t find any sources indicating when those coaching stints took place or what notable events occurred during those periods. I’d also appreciate some help with that.

Haddad Maia fan (talk) 21:21, 10 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm sure there may be a couple instances like this so I thought we'd discuss it here to prevent futures episodes. The infobox is used as an amalgam of the very most important data.... usually already handled in prose. Only the current coach, tennis majors and olympics, nationality, etc. In most Wikipedia biographies the residence parameter has been removed (quite recently) as unnecessary and for privacy. They tried to force it through WikiProject Tennis and it failed since we have so many international players who live in one country but reside in another. But is says "residence"... not multiple homes. Some players have heaps of homes but only one main residence. Whatever current sources use by consensus. If we start adding every home a player purchases the list will be long indeed like coaches use to be before we said current main coach. We add a coaches section to prose if there is a whole team of coaches or to mention past coaches. And with residence it should simply be the main residence per sources... not 2, 3, 4 or 5 residences for each new home.... the primary living place should be in an infobox. At Alexandra Eala I'm in a dispute with an editor about listing more than one residence. Extra homes is not vital data here.

I'm not sure which place is the main residence but there should be only one... and if we can't come to an agreement then list none. The infoboxes are already quite lengthy these days without listing all homes. Can someone figure out which home is Eala's main home today and resolve this issue? I can't even add a dispute template that tells editors to goto the talk page without it being reverted so I figured it's best to mention things here so we can direct other discussions to this item. Cheers. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree that only one should be included, because this prevents the infobox from being longer than necessary. Another thing is that a lot of people have vacation houses or homes where they stay when they are in a certain city, and in my view, this is not that relevant to the main information about the player, I could say that it is almost trivial in some sense Haddad Maia fan (talk) 00:43, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Agreed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:05, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Just remove all of them already. Literally no one cares about Alexandra Eala’s residence! T v x1 09:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Right, let's talk about the recent proliferation of tennis season articles. While we have local policy WP:TENNISSEASON in place to guide their creation, we are seeing an increasing number of pages being launched without clear notability. For instance, 2026 Coco Gauff tennis season, 2026 Iga Świątek tennis season, and 2026 Novak Djokovic tennis season were all created early in the year, despite no Grand Slam titles and only a few weeks they stayed in the top five, which hardly a compelling case for standalone coverage. More recently, 2026 Serena Williams tennis season was created to document her return to the sport, yet the article reads more like a WP:ROTM match log than a substantive season summary. Looks like we are turning into WP:FANCRUFT and such trend suggests it may be a time to revisit the notability requirements for season pages and tighten the criteria to prevent unnecessary content creep. Unnamelessness (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

That was likely to happen as soon as multiple players started winning majors in a single season. So no clear dominant force means extra articles. Not much we can do about the parameters. We have bunches of players from the past that still need season articles. But how the heck did Serena get a new season article? That is not warranted at all! Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:04, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I'm normally on the inclusionist side of these debates but I don't see the encyclopedic value in some of these player season articles. Would not mind tightening of the criteria.--Wolbo (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think I warned about this over 15 years ago when the rules were set. You can't have special arbitrary rules just because their names were Federer, Nadal, or Williams. And now if we tighten up the rules we'll wind up having to delete articles of theirs that have been here for years. There should already be 100x as many season articles but no one has bothered to create any at all for players like Navratilova, Evert, Court, Graf, Sampras, Borg, Connors, Laver, Rosewall, etc. Those players per our rules, should have a season article pretty much every year of their careers too. Putting the genie back in the bottle would now require a herculean effort.... if it's even possible. But we certainly need to respond on that Serena 2026 debate or that one will stick too. Fyunck(click) (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Personally, I find it very strange that my edit on List of quad wheelchair tennis champions has been reverted far a "Non-calendar year Grand Slam". The reason is that all four can still win this year. At the moment, six Grand Slam tournaments in a row have been won in doubles. We do not know what may happen in the future. We have to reflect the current situation. After the Australian Open, it shouldn't have been mentioned because they could still win three grand slams in 2026? If the win the US Open 2026 we can upgrade it to a calender year slam. Micnl (talk) 19:28, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I do feel that including them on the NCYGS falls into WP:CRYSTALBALL territory because by doing so we're already assuming that these won't win the other remaining slam(s) of the year, and since the Grand Slam (tennis) and related articles keep tabs on "how many achieved what", it could be confusing for some readers to see some numbers going up and down and entries appearing and disappearing over time, so I think that these achievements that are conditioned by some exclusive criteria, like the NCYGS and the TQS ones, should be cited and counted only afther the achievement is fully confirmed. ABC paulista (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

On the point of the crystal ball, we fundamentally disagree. In my opinion, there is now a "Non-calendar year Grand Slam". Whether they participate in the US Open is unknown, whether they will win the matches remains to be seen.

I see on the page of the Argentinian football team, the number of games won and goals listed under the heading FIFA World Cup. There we know for sure that this data will change. Statistics are shown in more places that reflect the current situation.

In my opinion, I don't assume that they lose. By not displaying it, you assume that they will be able to do even more in the future. --Micnl (talk) 15:09, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

If I were assuming that they'd be able to do even more in the future, I'd already include them on the CYGS table, which wasn't the case. Since we're not displaying it, we're making no assumption: Either they achieve the CYGS by winning the US Open, or they achieve the NCYGS by losing the US Open. It remains to be seen, and we wait it to be realized to include them.

Your comparison to the Argentinian football team's stats is, honestly, apples-to-oranges. These stats are only additive, whatever happens onwards won't chnage their status or remove/invalidate their achievements, which would be the case if a NCYS is "upgraded" to a CYGS. A more apt comparison would be the way that the ATP and WTA rankings are updated: They are updated weekly and/or after competitions, on after it's all said and done, and no live changes mid-tournaments or mid-week are considered on official stats.

Similarly, the ITF (World Tennis) has its Roll of Honour, which cites all the CYGS and NCGYS instances, and they update it annually, only after the season is all done. They don't update it after each tournament, and we should take a similar approach. ABC paulista (talk) 21:28, 13 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I am interested in the opinion of others because ABC paulista an I have different opinions. After Wimbledon there are three streaks of 4+ grand slam titles. Micnl (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Honestly, I think it’s very weird to insert data that is "possible to happen" or "possible to become the truth". Wikipedia is for displaying facts, not "things that might happen" or "might become facts" Haddad Maia fan (talk) 13:47, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Were not discussing things that might happen. We’re discussing whether something which has happened should be included. As it stands, those players haven won all four of the grand slam tournanements in a row, just not within the same calendar year. T v x1 12:33, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I think that the bigger picture here is if wherever winning all four majors in a row automatically means achieving a NCYGS, or if it only counts after it's confirmed that they can't achieve a CYGS on the same sequence. I tend to side with the latter because I don't know any possible NCYGS contained within a CYGS to be recognized as such, and all sourcing lead me to believe that one can have either one or the other, and with the latter superceding the former. ABC paulista (talk) 15:01, 19 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

There's actually 4 active streaks: Niels Vink on both quad singles and doubles alongside Guy Sasson, Tokito Oda on Wheelchair men's singles and Jana Kovackova on girl's doubles. ABC paulista (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Gonzalo Escobar#Requested move 21 July 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ~2026-40915-49 (talk) 13:28, 21 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

All, I am an AfC reviewer and came across this draft that has been submitted. This page was originally deleted in 2025 via an AfD proposed by Tvx1. From my eyes, it looks like there has been quite a bit of development with their partnership since 2025. My question is how notable are these developments and are they enough to warrant this page being viable again? Thanks! Sulfurboy (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I still don't think these developments are enough for the doubles pair to warrant a separate article. They still haven’t achieved anything that hasn't been done by dozens of other pairings before. The bar for doubles pairs to warrant an article is extremely high. Just look at how little teams actually have one right now. There are pairs who won a career grand slam together and don't have an article.

These two players still are far more notable for their separate careers. Moreover both players from this pair still had more succesfull other doubles partnerships in the past. All in all I feel that all the arguments in favor of deletion from the AfD still fully apply. T v x1 10:40, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree. The bar is very high. In terms of success and media coverage, this is nowhere near the legendary level of Krejčíková–Siniaková doubles team or Bryan brothers, for example. Spiderone ^{(Talk to Spider)} 08:34, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

This along with the previous AfD is enough consensus for me. Appreciate y'alls input. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:45, 27 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

During a pair of recent Afd's a user raised concern that the creator of the nominated articles was using AI to generate (some of) their comments in the AfD discussions. When I felt the editor in question was ignoring the request to stop doing this with their subsequent comments in one of the AfD's, I decided to bring this the attention of the administrators and during the course of that ongoing investigation it emerged that the editor had been using AI to create and contribute to articles during almost the entirety of their presence on Wikipedia. This means we are now left with an immense amount of cleanup work on Tennis articles.T v x1 17:48, 25 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

The user has now been globally locked blocked, because it turned out that they were a sockpuppet, for which they were already blocked on ptwiki, of another a globally locked account of long-term abuser. This now leaves us with a large cleanup of AI addititions.T v x1 16:34, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply