Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David H. Sherwood


 * 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 hoax, vanity perhaps, fails WP:BIO certainly'''. Dakota 03:24, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

David H. Sherwood

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

There is something fishy about this article. It begins with the first claim to notability, the quarterfinals of the 2001 Toyota Tennis Challenge in Athens, Georgia. The only reference that comes close to this is the website of the 2004 event. This event is a small amateur charity event and doesn't even come remotely close to meeting the notability criteria. The article also claims that Sherwood "entered 2002 ranked in the top 100 internationally." I've searched through the ATP rankings for that year, but he doesn't feature in the world's top 1,500 for the entire year. The final event mentioned is the Montana Open. This is a minor college sport event, not a tournament where you'd expect an accomplished professional tennis player. This all reeks of a hoax, of vanity or of non-notability. Either way, delete. A ecis Bravado 00:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable. Flakeloaf 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:BIO. No sources supporting notability. Principle assertion of notability (ranking in top 100 internationally) does not appear supported by sources and there are sources contradicting the claim. --Shirahadasha 02:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems a bit hoaxy to me, even if not, he's hardly notable enough. Sorry.  Lankiveil 04:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete - even if it's not hoaxaliscoius, still wouldn't pass WP:BIO SkierRMH 05:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete for all the reasons previously stated. House of Scandal 08:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete no independent quotes or verifiable sources Alf photoman 15:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete this article fails WP:BIO. I would suggest it's a puff piece. --Fredrick day 16:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Is it not time that someone proposed the adoption of WP:UNTRUE?--Anthony.bradbury 17:13, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems the nominator did more thorough research than the editor who posted the article.  Even if entirely factual, the article fails to sufficiently assert the person's notability.zadignose 17:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with Zadignose-if the nominator does more work than the writer, doesn't this seem like either an obvious case of WP:BIO and WP:N or a hoax? -- tennis man    sign here!  17:30, 21 January 2007 (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.