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

2011 Cachantún Cup – Doubles

2011 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 revisionJun 5, 2025
Entity authorityQ3649357 ↗
Source-derived summary

Sebastián Prieto and Horacio Zeballos were the defending champions from the last edition of the tournament in 2009, but only Zeballos chose to defend his title.

He played alongside Máximo González. They won the title, defeating Guillermo Rivera Aránguiz and Cristóbal Saavedra Corvalán 6–3, 6–4 in the final.

Editorial summary

This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “2011 Cachantún Cup – Doubles” as 2011 tennis event results. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.

Editorial reviewA useful synthesis for locating the documentary relationships between formal authority, participants and affected communities. The current lead gives the account dated anchors—2009—that can be checked directly. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. The account is most persuasive where Cachantún, Doubles and tennis can be independently traced.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

The subject matters to the history & society register because the source frames it as 2011 tennis event results. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.

Evidence profile

Contemporary correspondence, administrative files and participant testimony can test how later narratives organized the event or institution. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jun 5, 2025. The linked authority identifier is Q3649357. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2009.

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 “2011 Cachantún Cup – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2011 Cachantún Cup – Doubles primary sources, 2011 Cachantún Cup – Doubles archive and Cachantún 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 “2011 Cachantún Cup – 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 “2011 Cachantún Cup – 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.