Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Louise Allen (tennis)


 * 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The result was Withdrawn. I will establish consensus regarding WP:ATHLETE then return if appropriate. James086 Talk 12:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Louise Allen (tennis)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have not found "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources". Some may meet WP:ATHLETE but it only suggests that they are likely to meet the general notability guideline which these do not. If you find sources to prove notability I will strike the nomination of that article. I recommend deletion without prejudice, that is, if sources become available or if someone finds sources somewhere (perhaps offline) then the articles can be recreated rather than being speedied. James086 Talk 08:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)  James086 Talk  08:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Louise Allen. She advanced to the second round of each of the majors (her alma mater claims she made it to the "third round of singles at Wimbledon and U.S. Open, and quarterfinals of doubles"), more than enough to satisfy WP:NTENNIS. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The first sentence of the guideline you linked to is "This guideline is used to help evaluate whether or not a sports person or sports league/organization (amateur or professional) will meet the general notability guideline, and thus merit an article in Wikipedia." She meets NTENNIS, but does not meet the general notability guideline, thus does not warrant an article (unless someone can find "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources"). James086 Talk  08:34, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep all, without prejudice to individual renominations. The nominator is apparently unaware of deletion procedure, and suggests that "some may meet WP:ATHLETE". If an article meets that guideline, then it doesn't have to meet WP:GNG. Hence, there has been no argument forwarded for deletion, and the nomination fulfils criterion #1 at Speedy keep. StAnselm (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the first sentence of WP:ATHLETE or my other comments in this AFD. Meeting WP:ATHLETE is not criteria for inclusion, the GNG is. Meeting WP:ATHLETE only suggests that it's likely that the person will meet the GNG. James086 Talk  09:00, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And I think you are misreading the guidelines - if you don't think that meeting WP:ATHLETE is a sufficient condition for inclusion, you are adopting a very idiosyncratic interpretation. Notability says "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under What Wikipedia is not. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." StAnselm (talk) 09:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Major League Baseball players get in on the slightest of qualifications, e.g. one plate appearance. Honestly, how can one justify keeping somebody like that (and I've seen it done here) and excluding someone who, aside from her majors appearances, won 13 titles and an NCAA national championship? Anyway, there's a fair amount about Allen in the Albany Times-Union article ("Allen's Defeated by Mager's Again" - Highbeam sub. required) and her North Carolina 2003 Tennis Hall of Fame membership. Those plus her Trinity U. bio and various other less substantial mentions, are enough to construct a reasonably detailed article (which I'll get to a little later). Clarityfiend (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * @StAnselm: WP:ATHLETE, the subject-specific guideline (in the box on the right on WP:N), says that it should meet the GNG, so it goes around in circles. That doesn't mean it should be included.
 * @Clarityfiend: While I don't have a Highbeam subscription, it appears to be a match report (not considered sufficient basis for an article) but the award may be enough. I've struck her from the list for the meantime. James086 Talk  10:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep ALL. The articles are microstubs, yes, but that's because no one has really tried to expand them. Competing in the 2012 Asian Beach Games is automatically a grounds for notability (major continental tournament). Competing in the 1997 FIA GT Championship is automatically a grounds for notability (major international tournament), and I found evidence here that this driver did indeed race there: (he may not have actually driven in the race, but as an endurance driver, he being part of a trio that did race is enough). In addition to this, the grouping of people here makes no sense - by all means group those who competed in the 2012 Asian Beach Games together, but a random tennis player and racing driver as well? Lukeno94 (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I will assume you read what I said about WP:ATHLETE requiring the GNG so will just reply to the rest of the comment. They are microstubs because there is no potential to expand them. I don't disagree that the Asian Beach Games is a top level competition as is the FIA GT, but these people are so minor that they aren't worth mentioning. What information could be added to Kiyoaki Hanai article? The source for the article conflicts with SpeedSport Magazine (that you supplied), the one in the article says he was in 2 races, the table of results says he entered but never raced. The beach volleyball players could have their results listed, but that would just duplicate the information already listed at Beach volleyball at the 2012 Asian Beach Games, which also already gives all of the information available in the articles in one place. Something else important to note is that the sources you have provided are not considered sufficient basis for an article. James086 Talk  11:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
 * You do realize that passing the specific subject guidelines is enough, via long-standing consensus? Especially when they have competed in major international tournaments? You can expand any of these very easily - talk about the results they achieved, for example. I am well aware those sources are routine; please don't insult my intelligence, I provided them specifically to provide proof he did, in fact, enter a race, as I stated. Information specific to a player would not duplicate information elsewhere, unless you want to start arguing that, say, Jenson Button's F1 results is a duplication of each season article. You may not agree with the long-standing consensus, but the fact is, that's what Wikipedia is run to. Lukeno94 (talk) 12:10, 9 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep with nothing against individual noms for those that might not meet WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. Passing one of the many occupation-specific criteria sets is enough, per substantive consensus. Might be a misreading of ATHLETE or some unclear wording there. Either way, nom should probably tackle these case-by-case. Stalwart 111  12:14, 9 February 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.