Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eduardo Russi Assumpção


 * 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 keep. Consensus is that he meets the notability guideline for tennis players. Whether that guideline is too lenient, is not a question for AfD.  So Why  13:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Eduardo Russi Assumpção

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

As far as I can see this is a non-notable tennis player. He doesn't appear to pass the notability guidelines for tennis player. He doesn't regularly compete on the ATP World Tour. His only three appearances in a World Tour event were Wild Cards (so not achieved on merit) for an event in his home country in doubles (which is less notable than singles anyway). Moreover all three of those matches and did not even win a set. Tvx1 12:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - meets WP:NTENNIS as he appeared in 3 ATP World Tour level matches. Unsourced but sources can easily be found. Just because he hasn't won, doesn't mean he doesn't fit the notability guideline. If you feel it is too weak, you can start a discussion for stricter guidelines. But as of now, he meets the criteria. Adamtt9 (talk) 12:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Adamtt9 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.
 * Literally speaking, you might be correct. However, I think some discretion should be used. Three ATP World Tour matches through wildcards for events in his home country resulting in three straight sets losses for the win of just 11 games can hardly be claimed to constitute "competing on the ATP World Tour". Experience has taught me that generally making the main draw of a World Tour event through merit (=successfully passing through qualifying or gathering enough ranking points to gain direct entry) is what is used as the bar to assert notability. Add to that that doubles is inherently less notable than singles (that's how it this, unfortunately. I can enjoy watching a good doubles match myself but I have to accept that it attracts less interest) and I don't think you can genuinely claim that this person is a notable tennis player. And yes, achievement does matter. What they achieve is inherently what makes sportspeople notable.Tvx1 16:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, all three tournaments weren't home tournaments. One was in Spain, and you can't just twist around the notability guidelines to make them what you want. They say that a player must participate in an ATP level match, regardless of whether he received a wildcard or not. And he seems to be generally notable, as there are many hits if you search his name. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * The Spanish tournament was with a Spanish doubles partner Mario Vilella Martínez so it was effectively a home player wild card. By the way, the 6–2, 6–1 loss is Martínez' only ATP World Tour match. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I mean, they could have easily given it to another Spaniard. Adamtt9 (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I would devalue wildcards the way that you do. Many wildcards have some requirement (e.g., the US Open usually gives wildcards to the NCAA champions, USTA champions, and top finisher from a series of Challenger tournaments).  No idea how this player earned his, but considering its distinct tournaments in different countries, he must have accomplished something to earn those wildcards.  I don't mean that to say I know he met a requirement, but if he achieved that little he would have maybe gotten one, but not three and not three in three separate tournaments in two different countries.   I could see disputing the quality of a player with just one wildcard in their home country, but three is too many to just dismiss. RonSigPi (talk) 02:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:28, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions.   CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   17:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete - Agree with the nomination, and WP:NTENNIS needs revising. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - This is one of those players that makes it by the guidelines, but sucks. There's always a few, just like we have players who make it by GNG, but have never played a pro tournament in their life. Are the guidelines too lenient, possibly, but they are easy to follow. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:19, 20 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - So he meets the guideline, but that only gives a presumption. Here, two things make me say we stick with the presumption.  First, this is a player from a non-English speaking country.  How many editors evaluating speak Portuguese?  I don't, so I don't think I can fairly evaluate sources or my lack of finding sources would be reasonable to indicate they are not out there.  Second, he played in three different tournaments in three different years.  Yes its doubles and yes he lost all three times, but his top-level career has spanned three years over multiple countries.  Considering those factors, I say keep. RonSigPi (talk) 02:22, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 00:56, 27 April 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 05:55, 4 May 2017 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  CAPTAIN RAJU  (✉)   04:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep He meets WP:NTENNIS as written. As a person who appears to still be active in a tennis career, we should keep the page based on that presumption. That said, I would support revising WP:NTENNIS to require an appearance at the ATP World Tour Masters 1000 level to be considered notable. Power~enwiki (talk) 18:22, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That's not likely to happen. Like baseball players we also have Olympic players, Davis Cup players, Fed Cup players, etc... Baseball does not automatically recognize minor league players, but tennis does IF they win a minor league title. Bseball automatically recognizes every major league player in the US, Japan and Korea. Baseball automatically recognizes any player who has played in an international competition. It could be argued that each ATP 500 and ATP 250 level tournament is an International competition. The ATP tour and WTA tour "are" the tennis major leagues. The ATP and WTA Challenger tours are still professional but are considered the minor leagues. The ITF is professional but is considered the minor-minor league of tennis. The way it is set up today is no minor-minor league player is notable. Minor league players are notable only if they win a championship. Major league players are always notable. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And that's the point of this AFD. This player is not a "major league player". He received three solitary invitations (two of which were in his home country) to compete in the lowest class of tournaments (ATP 250) in the "major league" in doubles (which is the lesser notable of the two types of events) and didn't even win a set in any attempt. He has never come close to actually earning the right to compete in any of the "major league" tournaments on actual merit, let alone to compete in the "major league" full time. He has never been ranked above 1500. He has never achieved anything which we consider to be notable by our guidelines.Tvx1 21:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * He was ranked 352 in doubles though. Not above 1500 in singles because I don't believe he plays singles anymore. Adamtt9 (talk) 22:11, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There's clearly consensus a strong sense that WP:NTENNIS is unreasonable here. I've stricken my keep vote and am starting a discussion of its revision. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Where is there consensus that WP:NTENNIS is unreasonable??? Adamtt9 (talk) 22:30, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * There isn't. No guidelines fit everything perfectly, which is why they are guidelines. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Even in terms of just this discussion, two out of five is nowhere near consensus. Adamtt9 (talk) 00:38, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Ignoring WP:NTENNIS for a minute, do you feel this player is notable? Power~enwiki (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. A quick Google search does give a good amount of results, and who knows how many more Portuguese results there are. Adamtt9 (talk) 02:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * And those google results are nothing but his match results and stats. These fall under WP:Routine. It's not only the amount of mentions that is important.Tvx1 02:59, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. Usually to pass GNG a player needs a little more oomph to the resume, like an interview. This particular player has been in three Major league ATP tennis draws but they were wild cards. From that we can take away a couple of things. Perhaps there could be a tweak to the tennis guidelines that "wild cards" will need to source additional GNG to make the cut. But on the flipside, wild cards to home country ATP events are usually given to bring in revenue. Those players are popular enough or good enough in their own country that a tournament wants to include them. So they could likely pass GNG in Brazil. Articles other than just scores can be found, such as here and here or perhaps here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is why we have guidelines. An English search for a Portuguese-language player competing in Spanish-speaking Spain won't yield anything.  We have to make judgment calls.  We have a guideline that the community has established.  One editor's opinion should not simply sway the collective decision of the entire community, especially when the subject does not just technically meet the guideline, but exceeds it by appearing in different events in different years (so no WP:1E).RonSigPi (talk) 21:41, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm still confused. I don't see a case based on his singles career, but there may be one based on doubles.  Appearing in the championship match of an ATP250 tournament is different from simply entering one. But his Wikipedia page doesn't currently link or refer to any ATP250 or above tournaments he competed in. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - Passes WP:NTENNIS. He is also very much active and reached his career high doubles ranking just last month, after the three ATP Tour appearances. I think it's premature to make a judgement yet, a retired player would make a better test case if these guidelines are to be challenged. Jevansen (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2017 (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.