Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bianca Fernandez
- 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 Nomination withdrawn, discussion better suited to Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) (non-admin closure) Bonoahx (talk) 12:26, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Bianca Fernandez[edit]
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Bianca Fernandez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The player no longer meet the recent changes to WP:NTENNIS, that deems notability as winning a title above ITF 50k. She has played with her sister, Leylah Fernandez, who does meet notability guidelines, so perhaps parts of this article could be merged with Leylah Fernandez#Personal life and the article could be resurrected if and when she meets WP:NTENNIS. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennis-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bonoahx (talk) 15:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep - may not meet the new criteria for NTENNIS but I believe she meets WP:GNG. I found a good amount of sources through a quick search that actually mention her and not just in passing while mentioning her sister, like here. Adamtt9 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
- That article says very little about her, and the other references in the article don't meet WP:GNG either. Can you link some of the other sources you believe meet WP:GNG? BilledMammal (talk) 02:00, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 00:54, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Passes Wikiproject Tennis Guideline. Played in the main draw of the 2022 Monterrey Open. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:24, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS,
WikiProject advice pages, how-to and information pages, and template documentation pages have not formally been approved by the community through the policy and guideline proposal process, thus have no more status than an essay.
As such, arguments based on it have no weight at AFD. BilledMammal (talk) 06:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)- They absolutely do have weight. WikiProjects have never been relegated to obsolescence. Wikipedia guidelines are also guidelines, not policy. There are many items that standard guidelines cannot conceive of and it's why WikiProjects are so vital to take the weight off of really important items that the encyclopedia has to deal with. Are the weights different... of course... but Tennis Project will continue to use their guidelines along with other wikipedia guidelines to make a determination on things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- To quote more of the policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS,
For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
This means that an essay at Wikiproject Tennis cannot be used to support keeping an article that fails WP:GNG. BilledMammal (talk) 06:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)- They have since the beginning of Wikipedia, and that's not going to change. The general populous of Wikipedia doesn't have the time or where-with-all to go through what a WikiProject has to go through day in and day out. Every tennis article would be vandalized, unreadable, filled with conjecture, and unstructured. Our guideline has been scrutinized by 100s of editors through the years. It has been used by administrators and advanced editors to fine-tune many tennis Featured Articles. It's not some willy-nilly set of guidelines. It has developed over a decade and has had much input on the project talk page. It has weight and cannot just be dismissed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- That might have been the case at the beginning of Wikipedia, but that is not the case now. If you want the essay at Wikiproject Tennis to be relevant here you either need to have it accepted as a guideline, or modify WP:CONSENSUS to allow such essays to be used as you want to use them. BilledMammal (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Then it beggars the question as to why WP:NTENNIS has been changed so dramatically. I understand that there was a wide-ranging discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability regarding notability of players of all sports. Before this, the guidelines were such that it would've been an error on my part to nominate Bianca Fernandez or any other of the articles I nominated as it would have quite clearly met WP:NTENNIS. I think it's a good idea to discuss as to whether there's some room for improvement there, be it through consensus on AfD or other discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is room for improvement, through a careful proposal at WP:NSPORT that will fix the issues we had with the previous NTENNIS, that supported articles on non-notable individuals, like many of the ones you have now nominated, being kept. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No question there is always room for improvement and some players will always be iffy. However, as was mentioned in the series of nsport dialogs, they were not meant to be a green light to remove already existent articles by the bushload. It was really meant for things going forward. Wiki Guidelines have been over-ridden so many times since I've been here that my head spins from thinking about it. Sometimes from a consensus of two people. Wikiproject Tennis Guidelines usually work very well and it stops heaps and heaps of edit wars. Do some slip though... sure they do.... but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nsport is extremely general in nature and can't handle everything and that's where individual projects shine. They keep things running smoothly with the editors that actually have to deal with these issues day in and day out. We don't nominate and run, we have to stick it out in the tall weeds and mud. We've worked very hard on the Guidelines so that they work. Anyone who says they have zero weight and bearing on these issues is wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- I understand, and Bianca probably meets WP:GNG anyway, but I hope you can see where I am coming from as having entirely different guidelines in Wikipedia:WikiProject Tennis/Article guidelines#Player to what are now the guidelines in WP:NTENNIS is extremely confusing, but there is a point to be made in that it reduces the number of short articles of players that have only played one or two matches in their entire career. The primary guideline that has been removed is a player is notable after having competed in the main draw of an ATP/WTA tournament or a grand slam. The current iteration of WP:NTENNIS would've potentially caused Emma Raducanu to be considered non-notable until after she won the 2021 US Open (there was obviously enough significant coverage before then, but that's besides the point). Bonoahx (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- No question there is always room for improvement and some players will always be iffy. However, as was mentioned in the series of nsport dialogs, they were not meant to be a green light to remove already existent articles by the bushload. It was really meant for things going forward. Wiki Guidelines have been over-ridden so many times since I've been here that my head spins from thinking about it. Sometimes from a consensus of two people. Wikiproject Tennis Guidelines usually work very well and it stops heaps and heaps of edit wars. Do some slip though... sure they do.... but you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Nsport is extremely general in nature and can't handle everything and that's where individual projects shine. They keep things running smoothly with the editors that actually have to deal with these issues day in and day out. We don't nominate and run, we have to stick it out in the tall weeds and mud. We've worked very hard on the Guidelines so that they work. Anyone who says they have zero weight and bearing on these issues is wrong. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- There is room for improvement, through a careful proposal at WP:NSPORT that will fix the issues we had with the previous NTENNIS, that supported articles on non-notable individuals, like many of the ones you have now nominated, being kept. BilledMammal (talk) 09:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Then it beggars the question as to why WP:NTENNIS has been changed so dramatically. I understand that there was a wide-ranging discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability regarding notability of players of all sports. Before this, the guidelines were such that it would've been an error on my part to nominate Bianca Fernandez or any other of the articles I nominated as it would have quite clearly met WP:NTENNIS. I think it's a good idea to discuss as to whether there's some room for improvement there, be it through consensus on AfD or other discussion. Bonoahx (talk) 09:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- That might have been the case at the beginning of Wikipedia, but that is not the case now. If you want the essay at Wikiproject Tennis to be relevant here you either need to have it accepted as a guideline, or modify WP:CONSENSUS to allow such essays to be used as you want to use them. BilledMammal (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- They have since the beginning of Wikipedia, and that's not going to change. The general populous of Wikipedia doesn't have the time or where-with-all to go through what a WikiProject has to go through day in and day out. Every tennis article would be vandalized, unreadable, filled with conjecture, and unstructured. Our guideline has been scrutinized by 100s of editors through the years. It has been used by administrators and advanced editors to fine-tune many tennis Featured Articles. It's not some willy-nilly set of guidelines. It has developed over a decade and has had much input on the project talk page. It has weight and cannot just be dismissed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- To quote more of the policy at WP:LOCALCONSENSUS,
- They absolutely do have weight. WikiProjects have never been relegated to obsolescence. Wikipedia guidelines are also guidelines, not policy. There are many items that standard guidelines cannot conceive of and it's why WikiProjects are so vital to take the weight off of really important items that the encyclopedia has to deal with. Are the weights different... of course... but Tennis Project will continue to use their guidelines along with other wikipedia guidelines to make a determination on things. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS,
- Keep She is young but there is enough sources online a simple google search proves that, and all SNGs need reinstating. Govvy (talk) 12:06, 9 March 2022 (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.