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. Timotheus Canens (talk) 09:27, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Viktorija Rajicic[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable player, both at the junior and senior level Mayumashu (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as article fails notability criteria for tennis players. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 07:10, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Rajicic passed the notability criteria for tennis players. She competed in the 2010 Australian Open, a Grand slam tennis tournament. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 17:24, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But she competed as a junior player, and according to notability criteria for tennis players, they are not notable. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 18:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She has also competed in the senior event of the 2010 Australian Open [1] Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 18:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But not in the main draw (she got a wild card into the qualifying draw). The guidelines are not explicit, but the implication is that one competes in a main draw of a grand slam tourney to be notable Mayumashu (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Those guidelines wasn't clearly developed and can be easily challenged. It wasn't created by experts in the tennis area. The creator of the guidelines himself did say that he "Don't follow tennis much", per here. And I can't also find any concrete concensus being made prior to the creation of those guidelines. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline modifications
Below are some suggestions on what merits a professional tennis player a WP article: Women tennis players who has won at least a title in the professional ITF Women's Circuit (this is considered equivalent to winning a match in the WTA Tour) Players who has featured for their country in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or in the Olympic Games Women tennis players who has been ranked in the top 500 in singles or in the top 250 in doubles should be considered notable by default Men tennis players who has been ranked in the top 600 in singles or in the top 300 in doubles should be considered notable by default Players who has beaten any other player ranked in the top 200 in the singles ranking or in the top 100 in doubles in any professional tennis tournament Players who has won any junior Grand slam tennis tournaments to be considered notable by default Any professional junior tennis players who has been in the top 5 of the ITF Junior world rankings [2] Professional players who has significant coverage in the media Imho, this Afd and others involving tennis players notability should be withdrawn immediately pending further discussions and consensus. The guidelines given at WP:ATHLETE here aren't concrete enough and isn't via proper discussions. Maybe this should go to RfC or to the tennis wikiproject talkpage instead to invite greater participation. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Guideline modifications

Below are some suggestions on what merits a professional tennis player a WP article:

Women tennis players who has won at least a title in the professional ITF Women's Circuit (this is considered equivalent to winning a match in the WTA Tour)
Players who has featured for their country in the Fed Cup, Davis Cup, Hopman Cup or in the Olympic Games
Women tennis players who has been ranked in the top 500 in singles or in the top 250 in doubles should be considered notable by default
Men tennis players who has been ranked in the top 600 in singles or in the top 300 in doubles should be considered notable by default
Players who has beaten any other player ranked in the top 200 in the singles ranking or in the top 100 in doubles in any professional tennis tournament
Players who has won any junior Grand slam tennis tournaments to be considered notable by default
Any professional junior tennis players who has been in the top 5 of the ITF Junior world rankings [2]
Professional players who has significant coverage in the media

Imho, this Afd and others involving tennis players notability should be withdrawn immediately pending further discussions and consensus. The guidelines given at WP:ATHLETE here aren't concrete enough and isn't via proper discussions. Maybe this should go to RfC or to the tennis wikiproject talkpage instead to invite greater participation. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 10:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Make "Guideline modifications" collapsed as it is not the right place for it. WP:ATHLETE is a guideline because the community accepted it by consenus. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the guidelines need a lot of work and agree with about half of your suggested modifications put here - yours are certainly closer to what I see as the ideal for WP and tennis bios than the first crack at it so to speak. I started a talk on ther matter here [3]. I will take the liberty of cutting and pasting the suggetions made here to there and replying to them there. I will also withdraw these nominations, as you prefer, until there is a better set of guidelines. Mayumashu (talk) 17:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Discussion needed on better keep/delete guidelines for tennis bios Mayumashu (talk) 17:19, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even though you are withdrawing, I would note that its a BLP created after March with no sources. As such it should be deleted. All BLPs require sources. -DJSasso (talk) 00:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources has been added to the BLP. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 11:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. Nominator has withdrawn but there are outstanding "delete" !votes. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.