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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) 4meter4 (talk) 11:37, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lionel Brodie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Article is on an amateur tennis player. The Australian Open did not start admitting professionals until 1969, long after Lionel Brodie participated. As such, fails WP:NTENNIS and WP:SIGCOV. 4meter4 (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 14:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:NTENNIS is not limited to professional tennis players, and to do so would make a mockery of the significant coverage many amateur players received in the years before the open era. Iffy★Chat -- 10:52, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. As far as I can see, Brodie does not meet one of the criteria of WP:NTENNIS, so what are you basing your keep vote on? There's also no evidence of significant coverage of this individual to meet WP:SIGCOV. Historically we do not keep articles on subjects who play in opens when they are non-professional. Criteria 3 specifies that the open must be professional. See for example, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Bennett (tennis), in which several members of WP:WikiProject Tennis pointed to the fact that participating in amateur opens is not inherently notable. This is a very similar case. Also Iffy, please remember to sign your above comment. Best. 4meter4 (talk) 19:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the signature, apologies. The key difference between players like Robert Bennett and Lionel Brodie is that Brodie participated in multiple Grand Slams, reaching the quarter finals and semi-final stages, while gthe result of the Bennett AFD appears to be on the basis that he played in only 1 match and lost it. Iffy★Chat -- 19:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The prior AFD was based around the fact that participation in an open prior to it going professional is not notable with special attention given to the professional requirement of criteria 3. No discussion was based around the actual player’s standing in that open. Basically NTENNIS does not support the notability of amateurs (even if they win a grand slam if that slam was not professional at the time). That doesn’t necessarily mean that this individual couldn’t still pass SIGCOV though if sources are found and presented here. Best.4meter4 (talk) 22:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even do a WP:BEFORE search before opening this AFD? The article cites an obituary in The Sydney Morning Herald for his death (undeniably a reliable source), which makes me think that there is more coverage in Australian newspaper archives. Iffy★Chat -- 11:51, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did do a before search, although tennis is not my area of expertise. The trouble with obituaries is that there are two kinds: one which is written by an independent staff writer and another which is submitted and paid for by family/ people connected to the person who died. Typically obits which are independent have a named staff writer with a byline and the obit itself has a title other than obituary. Since neither are present in this ref and there is no url link it is impossible to tell the quality, independence, or significance of this particular reference.4meter4 (talk) 14:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are possibly over 1600 references at:

• https://trove.nla.gov.au/search/advanced/category/newspapers?keyword.phrase=lionel%20brodie&keyword=tennis

I have not looked in detail at these, but even assuming that the vast majority are trivial and-or routine and some are not about the subject, it will only require ~ 1% of them to be good ones to pass GNG. Looks like no BEFORE was done. Aoziwe (talk) 13:19, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make assumptions about BEFORE searches. My research skill sets are obviously not the same as yours, and where and how people search makes a big difference. I was not even aware of the existence of https://trove.nla.gov.au for example. Please read WP:AGF.4meter4 (talk) 15:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I have substantially edited the page, expanding the content and adding several IRS. Brodie clearly passes WP:GNG. Cabrils (talk) 02:34, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment based on Cabrils's excellent work plus Aoziwe's newspaper search, I am withdrawing this nomination as it appears SIGCOV has been met.4meter4 (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2021 (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.