CACrown ArchivesThe cinema collection
EN/FR
Search
Menu
Research dossier · History & Society

1999 ASB Classic – Doubles

1999 tennis event results

Layered newspapers, civic records and oral-history reels arranged as chronological evidence
History and societyInterpretive dossier study · Crown Archives visual atlas
Record originEnglish Wikipedia
Text licenseCC BY-SA 4.0
Source revisionOct 11, 2025
Entity authorityQ3601201 ↗
Source-derived summary

The 1999 ASB Classic doubles was the doubles event of the fourteenth edition of the ASB Classic; a WTA Tier IV tournament and the most prestigious women's tennis tournament held in New Zealand. Nana Miyagi and Tamarine Tanasugarn were the reigning champions but did not compete that year.

Silvia Farina and Barbara Schett lost in the final 6–2, 7–6(7–2) against Seda Noorlander and Marlene Weingärtner.

Editorial summary

Begin with the source’s own compact description: “1999 ASB Classic – Doubles” is 1999 tennis event results. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Classic, Doubles and tennis, not as a finished interpretation.

Editorial reviewMost valuable as an event-and-institution map that identifies actors, dates and record creators for deeper historical inquiry. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—1999—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. For this dossier, Classic, Doubles and tennis is the immediate research focus.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The phrase “1999 tennis event results” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.

Evidence profile

The record creator and administrative purpose are central evidence, because official documentation reflects both action and institutional priorities. The source revision retrieved here is dated Oct 11, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q3601201. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1999.

Critical limits

Institutional narratives can privilege the records that survived while minimizing voices that were never formally collected. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.

How to read it

Compare institutional narratives with records created by participants and affected communities. Dates and formal titles are useful anchors, but not substitutes for context.

Best used for
  • Event chronology
  • Institutional context
  • Locating named record creators
Verify next

Contemporary correspondence, government or organizational records, oral histories and cited historical scholarship.

Three-step research path

  1. Establish the record: confirm the title “1999 ASB Classic – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 1999 ASB Classic – Doubles primary sources, 1999 ASB Classic – Doubles archive and Classic research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
  3. Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.

Questions for further research

  1. Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “1999 ASB Classic – Doubles”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  3. Who created the surviving record, and for what administrative purpose?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “1999 ASB Classic – Doubles” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.