Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Priti rijal


 * 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   no consensus. Arguments are made that the subject of the article is notable despite clearly not meeting WP:TENNIS. The arguments are based on the subject's achievements at a national level and coverage in reliable sources. As WP:NTENNIS is not a hard-and-fast rule, and because it is proper to consider the general notability guideline, those arguments are valid and cause a "no consensus" result. Mkativerata (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Priti rijal

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Not yet notable per WP:NTENNIS. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Filing Flunky (talk) 07:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Filing Flunky (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions.  —Filing Flunky (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment Fails NTENNIS indeed. Has no player record on the ITF or WTA tour site. The mentioned titles are only national level tournaments. Article can be recreated when she qualifies for NTENNIS, for example by playing Fed Cup or winning an ITF title. MakeSense64 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment She may qualify via GNG however. I cleaned up the references a bit. Two in depth articles about her in national Nepali newspapers, The Kathmandu Post and MyRepublica. National notability seems to be clear from these sources. I call this the small country advantage. MakeSense64 (talk) 07:27, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * If kept the article should be renamed to "Priti Riyal" MakeSense64 (talk) 07:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, typo. I meant "Priti Rijal". (right now the family name starts in low caps) MakeSense64 (talk) 09:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. One of the sources is another male player. I'm not sure winning the Nepal 2nd Armed Police Force Tennis Tournament in 2009 or the 9th Nepal Investment Open Tennis Tournament 2009 is gonna cut it here on wikipedia. Plus her name in English sources still appears to be Priti Rijal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Source three seems to be used to support the statement mentioning her brother. That can be removed as she is not mentioned in that source. Sources two and four are articles in national newspapers, with her as the main topic. She does not satisfy NTENNIS, but the newspaper articles support GNG. MakeSense64 (talk) 09:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is true about GNG and those newspapers but GNG also says "that significant coverage in reliable sources establishes a presumption, not a guarantee, that a subject is suitable for inclusion. Editors may reach a consensus that although a topic meets this criterion, it is not appropriate for a stand-alone article." I would still say no to a stand alone article since then the North Dakota Fargo Gazette could also do a story on their own college tennis players and have a good case to include them...but I could easily see tennis editors (who usually tend to be very inclusionistic) agreeing with you at the tennis project page. If you withdraw this afd I will not reinstate it. There are other more important things to do at tennis project. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:06, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't create this AfD, so it's not my job to withdraw it. As reviewing editors we have to look at NTENNIS and at GNG in this case. Significant coverage in more than one national newspaper may satisfy GNG. The coverage need not be in English. We have two in English and quite possibly there is more in Nepali language. I agree that national coverage in Nepal is equivalent to regional or statewide coverage in big countries like the USA. But it is what it is. To demand international coverage for people from small countries would also not be fair. MakeSense64 (talk) 14:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * True, the coverage can be from anywhere but it also makes it tougher to be notable if no English sources had mentioned it. If someone is great at something in China or something is popular in Eretria and nowhere else that doesn't mean it's notable in an English-language wikipedia. This is a journeyman tennis player and now a college player. What she has going for her is the fact their are few tennis players from Nepal. Consensus at tennis project would be interesting to see which way it falls, though getting any response at all in the off season is tough. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - I checked the junior circuit also and found nothing. The only place a Priti Rijal is mentioned (if it's the same person) is at a doubles college event here. Not nearly good enough. As she's not even on the tour this should simply be deleted. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:48, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - She's not a star tennis player on the international stage at this point, and may never ever meet WP:NTENNIS, but she's a big enough fish in a small pond to garner coverage in her country, sufficient to meet general notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:51, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, v/r - TP 03:35, 21 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep generally notable and we have undercoverage of Nepalese topics in general.LuciferWildCat (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep "nationally ranked Nepali professional tennis player". Even if you aren't a member of any of the Western/White nations and their official Tennis leagues, if you are notable in your nation, then you are notable.   D r e a m Focus  16:44, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We are trying to find what or who is notable in Tennis in an English language encyclopedia/wikipedia. Priti Rijal is really not notable. If someone in jr high gymnastics in Nepal is a really big deal there it still doesn't make her notable for gymnastics in this encyclopedia whether she's white, yellow, green or blue. If she's notable just for being in Nepal then lets find the best mumblypeg player in Pago Pago and make an article on her. Certainly Priti should be listed in NO tennis categories at all since she doesn't qualify. If she qualifies for some other reason that's someone else's jurisdiction here. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We are not trying to find if she is notable in tennis, we are trying to find if she is notable enough for having an article in WP. I see a general concensus that she is not notable per NTENNIS, but we always have to consider GNG as well. A minimum requirement is in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. That's what we have with two in depth articles with her as the main topic in two national English language newspapers. This suggests national notability. It is reasonable to assume that there is more coverage in Nepali language newspapers, but I can't read Nepali. If Nepal had a Fed Cup team we wouldn't be having this discussion. As a tennis player she is probably no worse than the Fed Cup players of the Cyprus or Oman Fed Cup team, who do satisfy NTENNIS simply by virtue of having played in a Fed Cup match. MakeSense64 (talk) 11:11, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is international. You don't have to be notable in any one language or nationality.   D r e a m Focus  12:20, 30 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is true...she could be notable in another country for other reasons. But then if that's true and she meets none of the wiki tennis requirements for notability, she should have none of the tennis categories added to her bio as she is not worthy of them. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete en Nepal hablan un idioma raro. Abarajame las 77333 bañeras (talk) 14:08, 30 December 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.