Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fred Hagist


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Baseball   Watcher  22:25, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Fred Hagist

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Is an apparently highly ranked collegiate tennis player from the 1950s, but who seems to have not won any tournaments, notable enough? Unreferenced BLP since it's creation in 2006 and whilst I can find many mentions of him on google news archives, I don't think anything could be considered significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG.The-Pope (talk) 14:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn. WP:NSPORTS guidelines aren't specific in terms of pre-Open Era tennis, but I think making the final (and therefore winning quite a few matches) of a fairly major, albeit not a Grand Slam, tournament is good enough.The-Pope (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions.  -- The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  -- The-Pope (talk) 14:51, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Subject is noted widely in the 1950s era, with over 200 news hits; however, of those none of them appear to indicate the subject passes WP:NTENNIS, and there isn't significant in depth coverage in any of those hits that I have read that indicate that the subject passes WP:GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for approaching me on whether I think this article still meets WP:NTENNIS. Presently NTENNIS doesn't factor in for era, as indicated by withdrawing party for reason why subject of article now meets NTENNIS; if there is a change in NTENNIS for this then the subject would fall under it as indicated, but until that time subject does not. Therefore, the next criteria for the subject to pass for inclusion is WP:BIO or WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG. Subject does not pass WP:BASIC or WP:GNG, for reasons already stated. Subject may pass WP:ANYBIO, which is up to debate, if participating in tournaments, prior to Open era counts, as being nominated for award. If the above is true then any participation in a notable event could then be likened to the possible precedence this discussion would set forth. Thus, any individual who ran for political office, that is documented by multiple reliable sources, could be seen as meeting similar criteria set forth in WP:ANYBIO.
 * Presently, I will maintain my stance, until either NTENNIS is altered, or a reliable source can be found that gives in depth coverage of the subject as stipulated by GNG. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

*Comment: Very notable tournament therefore passes notability for that. Don't know much else to say —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.102.154.8 (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan Talk Contributions 00:07, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete. Does not appear to pass WP:NTENNIS and appears to be just shy of WP:GNG.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 01:10, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - I would have thought that by withdrawing the nomination, the AfD would be over, but if you insist on relisting it and letting people have their view, then I better clarify my view. He now clearly meets WP:NTENNIS criterion #3 by reaching the final of a tournament that is now part of the ATP Masters circuit.The-Pope (talk) 11:20, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. If you are confident he passes notability you can close the debate yourself with 'nom withdrawn - non admin closure'. It was relisted because in failing to do so you gave the impression you weren't completely sure. Szzuk (talk) 21:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:56, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. Was closed as "nomination withdrawn" but there are outstanding "delete" !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - I closed the discussion earlier believing that WP:DEMOCRACY applies here. BUT you seem to be a much more experienced editor than I am, therefore, my actions should be automatically shut by yours. As far as the article, I "vote" keep, as the nomination doesn't have a point anymore. -- Loukinho (talk) 04:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would have thought that a WP:IAR close as no consensus would have been appropriate, and if the delete voters felt strongly enough about it, then DRV could have reopened it as "closed not per policy." But, lets instead go through the process for another week.The-Pope (talk) 07:29, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you nailed it. No need to be so strict to procedures when it prevents from improving wikipedia. But oh well, let's just get another week of this, let's wait. --Loukinho (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't know the correct procedure, however re-opening this doesn't serve any purpose. Szzuk (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. According to WP:SK, an AFD can be speedy closed if The nominator withdraws the nomination or fails to advance an argument for deletion—perhaps only proposing a non-deletion action such as moving or merging, and no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted.. This means that if there are any outstanding delete !votes, the AFD can't be closed. That being said, I have closed AFDs with delete !votes as "nomination withdrawn" per WP:IAR but those were situations where the AFD was almost a candidate for a WP:SNOW keep (ie 8 "keep" !votes with good rationales, one "per nom" delete !vote and the nominator withdraws). That isn't the case here. There are 2 other editors who are not convinced that the subject meets WP:NTENNIS or WP:GNG. Therefore, in my judgement, a close of "nomination withdrawn" was not appropriate. The proper thing to do in this case is to ask the 2 "delete" !voters to reconsider. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and asked both "delete" !voters to reconsider and Nipsonanomhmata is sticking with his "delete" recommendation. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 15:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the effort. It does help to have a full explanation too. It isn't the type of afd that anyone can really get their teeth into, so to speak, so I'll just wait now. Szzuk (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much all there is left for us to do to prevent an WP:EW. I concur with you, Szzuk. Also, it is valid to remind Ron Ritzman that this is NOT a democracy (WP:DEMOCRACY), and a "vote" recommending deletion doesn't imply more force than that of a consensus. Also, read the comment by "The-Pope" above. In either way, as I stated earlier, if closing admin consider this a polling, I "voted" keep per nominator. --Loukinho (talk) 14:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been linked to on the WikiProject Tennis discussion page.  --The-Pope (talk) 14:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Provided refs demonstrate he reached the final of a prestiguous tennis tournament thus passing GNG. NTennis doesn't say anything worthwhile about notability in the pre open era - however if he'd reached the final a few years later he'd clearly pass Ntennis. Szzuk (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep end of notable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.216.40 (talk) 13:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep poor Fred. I think we need to be flexible on the pre-open era notability. According to the notability justification of wikipedia just being in the draw of a 250 tournament is notable. I don't agree with that at all and I don't know who put that in the requirements but as of now those are the rules. Now Fred Hagist also played in several US Opens, making it to the third round in 1952. Being in a Major draw and being notable is debatable imho... but per wiki rules if you are notable for it in 2002 then you must be notable for it in 1952 or the whole thing falls apart. No way can we delete him and be fair. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * You can ask for the rules to be changed on the discussion page where the rules are.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 23:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:31, 27 April 2011 (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.