Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anne Schäfer


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Fails requirements for athletes (✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 11:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Anne Schäfer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

From my searching, this player has reached no notability requirements of WP:NTENNIS or WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines. No $35.000 ITF titles in singles or doubles, no main draw appearances in any WTA tournament, no Fed Cup. This is a run of the mill player that wins a round or two of the lowest events possible and picks up a 3 digit check. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  19:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. — Mike  moral  ♪♫  19:42, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I agree with the nominator; having reviewed the notability guidelines for tennis, she meets none, nor does she meet WP:GNG ... my Google News search turned up next to nothing.  Go  Phightins  !  22:16, 8 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I cannot find any information whatsoever about $35,000 women's tournaments, and they are not listed as a category of tournament in the article Women's Tennis Association. Do they exist? The subject of this article has won an ITF $25,000 tournament, which is more than 'winning a round or two of the lowest events possible'. Indeed, for tournaments up to 2007 this conferred a presumption of notability. So, the subject of this article does not meet the presumption of notability guidelines, and we need to look at the guidelines in WP:GNG. The articles in Top-Magazin and TTV informiert, which are used as references in the article, would seem to constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Coyets (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.