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

2019 Canberra Challenger – Doubles

2019 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 revisionJan 17, 2026
Entity authorityQ60787410 ↗
Source-derived summary

Jonathan Erlich and Divij Sharan were the defending champions but chose not to defend their title.

Marcelo Demoliner and Hugo Nys won the title after defeating André Göransson and Sem Verbeek 3–6, 6–4, [10–3] in the final.

Editorial summary

The public source identifies “2019 Canberra Challenger – Doubles” as 2019 tennis event results. This brief keeps that definition visible, then builds a research path around Canberra, Challenger and Doubles.

Editorial reviewA strong contextual entry point for chronology, institutions and public events when official records are distinguished from later interpretation. The current 37-word lead offers orientation but no explicit four-digit date, so chronology should not be assumed. The selected authority fields contribute no independent date. Its value is orientation rather than verdict, with Canberra, Challenger and Doubles providing the first useful test.
Editorial analysis

Why this record matters

A short description can identify a subject without explaining its stakes. For “2019 Canberra Challenger – Doubles”, the useful work is to connect “2019 tennis event results” to the records capable of establishing context and consequence.

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 Jan 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q60787410. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference.

Critical limits

Official terminology may obscure informal participation, dissent or communities documented only indirectly. 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 “2019 Canberra Challenger – Doubles”, its source revision and the description used here.
  2. Expand the search: follow 2019 Canberra Challenger – Doubles primary sources, 2019 Canberra Challenger – Doubles archive and Canberra 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 “2019 Canberra Challenger – Doubles”?
  2. Which voices are present, absent or mediated by the institution?
  3. What chronology connects this entry to wider political or social change?
Subject index

Search terms from this dossier

Source & attribution

This entry incorporates text from “2019 Canberra Challenger – 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.