Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Petrick (2nd nomination)

Charlotte Petrick

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 Nomination withdrawn.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) Bonoahx (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The notability guidelines at WP:NTENNIS have changed since this article was last nominated for deletion. The player now fails the guidelines as a win at an ITF $25k tournament is no longer considered notable, if the tournament was held after 2007. She has not played a professional match since 2017. Bonoahx (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG. I added several references to the article. The 2005 and 2006 in-depth coverage meets GNG (much to my surprise). The 2021 piece, long after retiring, makes 15 years of of in-depth coverage for tennis. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG is met per Nfitz. Jevansen (talk) 00:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 00:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Currently, local papers are suitable for establishing notability for athletes. This should be questioned, but under the current guidelines they are notable. BilledMammal (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes Wikiproject Tennis Guideline. Made it to the Quarterfinals of the Coupe Banque Nationale and then played in the event again the next year. Why was this even nominated? Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fyunck(click): I already answered your glib question. Guidelines for WP:NTENNIS have been changed due to wider-ranging discussion about sports notability at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3. To clarify, I am not looking to randomly delete tennis article and have pointless discussions - the whole purpose of AfD's are to question notability and garner a consensus on such and these three articles were examples of articles that have previously met WP:NTENNIS but now don't all of a sudden. If I was certain that the article was non-notable I would've done a WP:PROD. Bonoahx (talk) 09:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above comments the player seems to weakly pass GNG on the article, there is a bit more online to add to the article. Bonoahx If you don't do WP:BEFORE and are flat down nominating articles, this can get you in serious trouble. This isn't a warning, more of a suggestion. But don't add articles to AfD without doing the research first. Govvy (talk) 12:11, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I will withdraw the nom and speedy keep on the basis that discussion of notability guidelines is better-suited to that page. Didn't mean to step on any toes. Bonoahx (talk) 12:18, 9 March 2022 (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.